Tesla is hit by $2B patent troll case from Nikola Motors

https://electrek.co/2018/05/02/tesla-semi-patent-troll-nikola-motors-design/

by dsr12 • 8 years ago

89 105 8 years ago

If I was a shareholder in Nikola Id be worried. A new company should be focused on making great products and innovating. Getting into the patent suing game for what seemed to me to be trivial design elements seems like someone is distracted.

Maybe they did it for a little attention and feel the cost is worth it...

gomox• 8 years ago

I think its safe to assume the latter.

dmode• 8 years ago

If they did it for a little attention that is even dumber. All this will bring is negative attention as the article headline suggests. They have already been branded patent trolls

monochromatic3• 8 years ago

How is this a patent troll? Nikola isn’t a non-practicing entity. They have their own competing product.

Was the Apple-Samsung patent litigation “patent trolling?”

_r_o_y_• 8 years ago

I'm with you I don't understand why people are so quick to call a company a "patent troll" diluting the meaning.

mental1896• 8 years ago

This is either an opinion or PR piece. It's one-sided right off the bat and continually reminds the reader that this company is very obviously bad.

globuous• 8 years ago

That's what I thought, but towards the end of the article, the author explains himself. With supporting research which I appreciated:

But now I cannot get behind them at all after such a clear case of patent trolling. [...] A wrap windshield on a truck? That has been around for years before Nikola Motors or Tesla Semi: [picture of MAN truck with similar design] Those types of concepts, like a mid-entry door and wrap windshield, *have been around for decades really and the fact that Nikola would patent them and sue anyone who decides to use similar ideas sounds just like patent trolling to me. [picture that looks like its from the 90s showing a truck with wrapped windshield]

Bartweiss3• 8 years ago

I'm not sure what the origin of "patent troll" is, but common sources (e.g. Wikipedia) certainly don't say it's limited to non-practicing entities.

Patent trolling is an attempt to secure patents for the purposes of making money via lawsuits or licenses far in excess of the patent's actual value, using the threat of legal costs or hefty infringement penalties. This is particularly true when the patented trait is incidental, over-general, or simply granted in error.

So where does Nikola Motors fall?

- They use the patented techniques, and those features are not clearly incidental to the product.

But...

- Their suit claims 'damages' which are a large fraction of their company's lifetime revenue, and presumably an order of magnitude above their lifetime profits.

- A quick check of the side door patent shows that extremely similar products predate the D816,004 patent by quite a lot. The line between "already exists" and "is not a non-obvious advance on what exists" is sometimes fuzzy, but it's not clear why this patent was granted.

So yes - it's a suit conducted to make money in its own right rather than prevent use, claiming unrealistic damages for a dubious patent. By most usage, that makes it patent trolling even if you make products as well.

ceejayoz2• 8 years ago

The article includes this image, which shows all three patented elements, along with a bunch of 1980s/90s hair and typography: https://electrek.files.wordpress.com/2018/05/7d9a939bf5c3281...

Seems to clearly indicate these patents should be invalidated.

larrik• 8 years ago

That's true, but that's not the definition of a "patent troll". Patent trolls very specifically make all of their money with patent lawsuits and settlements. Nikola Motors is a real company making real products, however misguided this lawsuit is.

Purest• 8 years ago

"Specially designed for two-men or husband and wife teams"

I just wish someone would design a truck that two women could drive as a team. That would be a truly revolutionary design! /s

jbob2000• 8 years ago

Look at the pictures. They look about as similar as a Ford does to a Dodge. The grill, headlamps, body panels, windshield, hell, even the length of the truck is completely different between the two trucks.

A truck is a truck, you can't patent the form factor of a truck.

ctz• 8 years ago

you can't patent the form factor of a truck

Is there a specific part of design patent law you're referring to? A special case for trucks?

jeffreyrogers2• 8 years ago

You can actually. It's called a design patent. It's different than a utility patent because it's supposed to be non-functional. I haven't looked at the patents to see if they're design or utility patents though.

dragonwriter7• 8 years ago

A truck is a truck, you can't patent the form factor of a truck.

Yes, you can patent non-functional design elements of any product.

jacquesm8• 8 years ago

It doesn't matter if they are a practicing entity or not: they are still clearly using their patents in a trolling fashion. After all: (1) who had ever heard of 'Nikola' before this, (2) these patents are too dumb for words, (3) good luck showing $2B in damages and (if any) and (4) if you really believe that Nikola is now associated with Tesla because of battery fires then you're silly. These people are patent trolls pure and simple, that they do other stuff besides doesn't really matter.

Oh, and these patents shouldn't have been granted in the first place, they are design patents, and the design is right along the lines of other futuristic looking trucks that still look like trucks.

ams61102• 8 years ago

It doesn't matter if they are a practicing entity or not

Yes it does, the key characteristic of patent "trolling" is that the patent owner is not practicing.

I had heard of Nikola before this, because they have been featured on this site, and in other news outlets catering to EV-enthusiasts.

Many patents seem to me to be dumb, or for completely non-novel, obvious things ("one click ordering", etc), but the patent office granted them, so they are valid.

Agree they probably can't show $2B in damages, and on the fire confusion. But in any lawsuit you start off asking for way more than you'll settle for.

dsfyu404ed• 8 years ago

who had ever heard of 'Nikola' before this

They came up pretty regularly on HN months to a year ago. I would wager that among people who follow details of everything that happens in the EV industry the name is known.

wlesieutre2• 8 years ago

(1) who had ever heard of 'Nikola' before this

Previous discussion of Nikola on HN: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11683508

I think most people who follow electric vehicles at all seriously have heard of them.

butslob2• 8 years ago

After all: (1) who had ever heard of 'Nikola' before this

For real? I read about them on this site.

I know HN gives Tesla credit for a lot, but there were and are people working on electric semis; Tesla didn't come up with the idea.

These people are patent trolls pure and simple

(in your opinion)

FireBeyond• 8 years ago

they are still clearly using their patents in a trolling fashion. After all: (1) who had ever heard of 'Nikola' before this

Wait, what? "Screw you small company, -we've- never heard of you, so why should you be able to defend your patents?"

TFortunato• 8 years ago

"who had ever heard of 'Nikola' before this"

I mean, apparently some large companies like Anheuser-Busch, (people who actually buy trucks) have heard of them, if they announced they are buying up to 800 of them from Nikola...

That said, I do agree that these (and a LOT of design patents) are questionable at best, but I don't have any skin in the game when it comes to the trucking industry.

monochromatic3• 8 years ago

Of course it does. That’s definitional for “patent troll.”

manicdee5• 8 years ago

Everyone who follows Tesla knows about Nikola One, the super sexy class 8 tractor that promises to be a turbine/battery hybrid long range hauler.

Shell teamed up with Airflow to build the Starship prototype which will be doing a test run this year.

Sadly, functional requirements don’t trump patent filings (Apple vs Samsung) so Nikola is free to sue everyone whose aerodynamic truck design includes a curved windscreen.

Your opinion about whether these patents are valid or should have been issued is irrelevant. The Patent Office issues parents and leaves it to the courts to determine validity and worthiness.

busterarm• 8 years ago

Part of patent trolling is the filing of obviously bogus patents like these to begin with.

kevin_thibedeau• 8 years ago

These are design patents. They can't be bogus if they are sufficiently original. The Tesla design looks pretty damn similar to the Nikola.

mtgx• 8 years ago

Large companies can troll/abuse their patents against others, too.

I mean just look at the sum they're asking for. $2 billion? Based on what is that value determined? Tesla hasn't even officially launched its trucks yet, nor has Nikola. Due to the ridiculousness of the lawsuit alone I consider this "trolling". Also there is plenty of prior art. That's also one of the main reasons why car companies don't sue each other - it would be very stupid on their part to do so.

manicdee5• 8 years ago

From my reading the supposed damages are Tesla getting thousands of preorders, with each preorder for a Tesla being exactly one lost sale for Nikola purely because the buyers want a truck with a particular windscreen design.

ZeroGravitas• 8 years ago

Would you say that a company can become a "patent troll" by your strict definition after trying and failing to market an actual product? Are you sure that this lawsuit doesn't signal them giving up and looking for other ways to recoup their investments?

dragonwriter7• 8 years ago

Are you sure that this lawsuit doesn't signal them giving up and looking for other ways to recoup their investments?

They've got billions of dollars worth of preorders; there's no sign they've either had trouble marketing a product or given up on it.

SantaBarbarian4• 8 years ago

It's clearly not the proper use of "patent troll".

This is just the Tesla Branch Elonians extending their "the world is against our religion" into bizarre heights of delusion.

Nikola got patents granted. They are a real truck manufacturer, with real customers (including Budweiser's parent who just signed on. Big.), and don't remotely fit into the "patent troll" category.

After a while you just get tired of the All-Tesla-All-the-Time crowd complaining that other people are coming to the market-- probably with better management and more focus.

perpetualcrayon• 8 years ago

As soon as you admit to yourself that all vehicles must have certain features that "overlap" (such as the requirement of having a windshield on the front of the vehicle so the driver can view the road in front of them, aerodynamic properties), you quickly realize those 2 pictures at the top of the article look nothing alike. All press is good press? I get the feeling if that was the goal here it's going to backfire badly for Nikola Motors.

mrw34• 8 years ago

Musk's comments from yesterday's earnings call:

"We have a slight laughable lawsuit recently from some company ironically called Nikola. Nikola is suing Tesla. That's hilarious. Fate loves irony. But they're suing us because the way the trucks look, which is absurd. Nobody's buying a Semi truck because the way it looks, or because going to wraparound windshield or whatever. Please."

https://seekingalpha.com/article/4169027-tesla-tsla-q1-2018-...

maccard• 8 years ago

But they're suing us because the way the trucks look, which is absurd. Nobody's buying a Semi truck because the way it looks, or because going to wraparound windshield or whatever. Please."

Whether that's true or not, it has absolutely no bearing on the validity of the lawsuit.

mlevental• 8 years ago

doesn't it? does this kind of thing depend on exactly whether whatever characteristic was copied/stolen is actually responsible for any of the revenue/purchasing?

jessemoeller• 8 years ago

The author here appears to be confusing design patents with regular patents. A design patent covers the specific appearance of a product, functioning more like a trademark than a patent for an invention. The relevant matters here would be whether the appearance is similar enough to cause confusion, not whether anyone has ever used a wrap windshield before.

That being said, I do agree that they look nothing alike, so I would not expect this to be a very strong suit.

Grue3• 8 years ago

Would be even funnier if they were called Edison Motors.

mrleiter• 8 years ago

I have almost no knowledge of patent law, but calling this a troll case seems a bit naive. If it comes down to market confusion, than probably this won't stick, because as mrw34 said - nobody buys a truck for it's look, or at least no serious share of the electric semi truck market I think.

But if the major deciding issue in a patent case is whether or not a feature of a patented product infringes on another feautre of a patented product - then this could very well be serious.

heavenlyblue• 8 years ago

The Nicola Motors allows you to reserve up to 20 trucks in exchange for your e-mail address and $0.

I don't think they're really building anything.

LukeShu4• 8 years ago

For those wanting to evaluate whether they think the Tesla Semi infringes on the patents, the 3 patents are:

U.S. Pat. D811,944 (issued March 6, 2018) on fuselage shape http://pimg-fpiw.uspto.gov/fdd/44/119/D08/0.pdf

U.S. Pat. D811,968 (issued March 6, 2018) on wrap windshield http://pimg-fpiw.uspto.gov/fdd/68/119/D08/0.pdf

U.S. Pat. D816,004 S (issued April 24, 2018) on side doors http://pimg-fpiw.uspto.gov/fdd/04/160/D08/0.pdf

TheAdamist2• 8 years ago

How the side door is patentable is beyond me. Apparently trucks have never had side doors before.

The others just look generically futuristic & maybe aerodynamic versions of a current semi.

LukeShu4• 8 years ago

All 3 are design patents, which are patents on non-functional ornamental design of functional items. They aren't patenting side doors, they are patenting the way the side doors look.

walrus01• 8 years ago

How you can patent the shape of a fuselage is nuts, when it should be easy to show prior art for wind tunnel work by others going back to the early 1950s.

OedipusRex• 8 years ago

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Millennium_Copyright_A...

gzu• 8 years ago

So these were all issued just recently in 2018? Were they submitted after the Telsa semi prototype has been known to the public? That’s been at least a year or so.

dragonwriter7• 8 years ago

So these were all issued just recently in 2018?

Yes.

Were they submitted after the Telsa semi prototype has been known to the public?

No, the Tesla prototype was unveiled in November 2017; these were all filed on Dec. 30, 2015, as is prominently shown in the documents linked by GP.

Tomminn• 8 years ago

Okay, is it just me or are these patents insane? Literally no words or limitations as to what the patent actually covers. Just a set of pictures, with the part they would like to have "patented" emboldened.

Can't you just claim that Tesla's design is 1% different from the drawing and therefore not subject to this patent?

notlob2• 8 years ago

These are design patents, not utility patents. Chapter 1500 of the MPEP is the relevant reference, and in particular, 1502 distinguishes between design and utility patents.

In general terms, a “utility patent” protects the way an article is used and works (35 U.S.C. 101), while a “design patent” protects the way an article looks (35 U.S.C. 171).

https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s1502.html

joering2• 8 years ago

Can we remove “patent troll” from the title.m? Thats a bias! Not every lawsuit against patent is trolling!

ovao• 8 years ago

The title of the article matches the title of the submission, which is usually HN policy.

DannyBee5• 8 years ago

Just to note: These are design patents, not utility patents. They protect look and feel. IE you'd only infringe by having a windshield that looks the same, not a windshield that does the same thing or operates the same way, but looked different than the protectable parts.

LukeShu4• 8 years ago

Am I correct in thinking that since a design patent protects ornamental design, then if a design is necessary for functional reasons, the design patent doesn't protect it? That you couldn't design patent a wheel looking like a circle, because that is a necessary part of its utility?

Because the filed complaint itself seems to admit that the protected fuselage shape is necessary to achieve the ~0.37 drag coefficient that both vehicles have, which it also admits is necessary to attain appropriate range on EVs of this class.

DannyBee5• 8 years ago

That is correct, it does not protect functional portions, but it's fairly nuanced.

https://www.wintechblog.com/2016/04/functional-features-in-d... is some recent caselaw on this

notlob2• 8 years ago

I’d also like to add that the claimed elements appear in solid lines; broken lines are to show visible environmental structure and are not part of the claim.

cmurf• 8 years ago

Why are these designs patented? Design and art usually fall under copyright.

Tesla is hit by $2B patent troll case from Nikola Motors

Related Stories