Log in or register
Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 07 DECEMBER 2018

A Closer Look At Tesla's Open-Source Patent Pledge

Duane Morris LLP
Duane Morris LLP
Contributor
Explore more from Duane Morris LLP

In 2014, Elon Musk announced that he was "open-sourcing" Tesla's patents.

United StatesIntellectual Property
Duane Morris
Duane Morris
Author LinkedIn connections

In 2014, Elon Musk announced that he was "open-sourcing" Tesla's patents.  He argued that doing so would allow the electric vehicle market to grow more rapidly.  While Musk's original announcement was short on details, the company has since provided additional information regarding the use of Tesla's patents in its Patent Pledge.  Echoing language from Musk's announcement, the Patent Pledge states that Tesla "will not initiate a lawsuit against any party for infringing a Tesla Patent through activity relating to electric vehicles or related equipment for so long as such party is acting in good faith."

The Patent Pledge provides a potential path for companies to use the technology covered by Tesla's patent portfolio.  Tesla is the assignee of over 350 U.S. utility and design patents covering a broad range of technology, from thermal management systems to door handles.  However, companies considering whether to use Tesla's patented technology should carefully review

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

Register for freeORLog in

Disclaimer: This Alert has been prepared and published for informational purposes only and is not offered, nor should be construed, as legal advice. For more information, please see the firm's full disclaimer.

View source

Related Articles

Legal Intelligence Newsletters: sign up for the latest legal and regulatory news on your chosen topics

Read more about

Related Comparative Guides

See more popular content from

Article

UMG v. DistroKid: When AI Becomes A Consumer Protection Issue

Universal Music Group's lawsuit against DistroKid raises a critical question about AI disclosure in consumer markets: when does the use of artificial intelligence become material information that must be disclosed to consumers? The case centers on allegations that DistroKid distributed mass-generated AI music while creating the impression it was created by legitimate human artists, potentially violating existing consumer protection laws even without specific AI disclosure requirements.
United StatesIntellectual Property
Frankfurt Kurnit Klein & Selz PC
Frankfurt Kurnit Klein & Selz PC
Article

The Trademark Scam Field Guide: Look-Alike Filing Sites, Fake USPTO Notices, And How To Get Out If You’ve Been Caught

A business decides to file a trademark. Someone on the team searches for a familiar online legal-services brand, clicks the first result, and lands on a site with a similar-sounding name, a polished design, five-star reviews, and a low flat fee. The application gets filed. Months later the business learns the “service” was not who they thought it was, the filing was signed by someone with no authority to sign it, and the USPTO has suspended the application along with hundreds or thousands of others from the same shop.
United StatesIntellectual Property
Harness IP
Harness IP
Article

PTAB/USPTO Update - October 2026

The USPTO has released new templates and guidance for AIA trial proceedings, announced key appointments including a Chief AI Officer, and published updated procedures for patent applications and subject matter eligibility declarations. Director Squires delivered multiple addresses emphasizing the constitutional importance of intellectual property rights while the agency expanded its community engagement efforts and international collaboration through WIPO's Global IP Assignment Platform pilot program.
United StatesIntellectual Property
WilmerHale
WilmerHale
Article

U.S. Government Backs Fair Use For AI Training In OpenAI Copyright Litigation

The U.S. government has filed a Statement of Interest of the United States of America under 28 U.S.C. § 517 in the Southern District of New York multidistrict litigation over OpenAI’s use of copyrighted works to train large language models. The filing appears to be the federal government’s first direct intervention in the wave of artificial intelligence (AI) training copyright cases, and it advises the court to treat model training (separate from use of AI to generate outputs) on copyrighted text standing alone as a highly transformative fair use under current law.
United StatesIntellectual Property
Lowenstein Sandler LLP
Lowenstein Sandler LLP
Article

DHS Proposes $70,000 And $30,000 Fees For F-1 Optional Practical Training

The Department of Homeland Security has proposed a controversial new rule requiring SEVP-certified schools to pay substantial fees—$70,000 for a student's first Optional Practical Training recommendation and $30,000 for each subsequent OPT application, including STEM extensions. With only a 30-day comment period and potential annual costs reaching up to $16.5 billion across nearly 2,500 affected institutions, the proposed regulation is expected to face significant legal challenges if finalized.
United StatesImmigration
Duane Morris LLP
Duane Morris LLP
Article

SEC Proposes Rule Amendments To Expand Retail Access To Private Markets

The SEC has proposed sweeping amendments to expand retail investor access to private market strategies, including changes to performance-based compensation rules for registered investment advisers and modernization of the interval fund framework. The proposals also explore new credential-based pathways for individuals to qualify as accredited investors, potentially opening private offerings to a broader pool of eligible participants.
United StatesFinance and Banking
Duane Morris LLP
Duane Morris LLP
Video

The Class Action Weekly Wire – Episode 168: Maryland Federal Court Dismisses ‘Drip Pricing’ Class Action Against Ticket Reseller (Video)

A federal court in Maryland recently ruled on a consumer protection class action against Vivid Seats involving allegations of "drip pricing" - the practice of advertising ticket prices without mandatory fees that are revealed later in checkout. While the court found the company's arbitration agreement unenforceable due to its unilateral modification clause, it ultimately dismissed the lawsuit for failure to adequately allege reliance or injury under Maryland's Consumer Protection Act.
United StatesConsumer Protection
Duane Morris LLP
Duane Morris LLP