Nikola owns US 10,077,084. As discussed in various forums, Nikola has accused Telsa of copying its semi-truck design. As part of that larger dispute, Telsa sought Inter-partes Review of Nikola’s patent before the PTAB at the USPTO (Institution Decision here).

The ’084 patent relates to a door on a semi-truck vehicle and addresses the issue of ingress and egress, and the difficulty of having the door relatively high off the ground.

The ’084 patent solves this problem with “at least one door that provides ingress and egress to the interior of the cabin of the vehicle, and the door opens into the cabin from a backside of the seat.” Specifically, because an electric motor is used in place of the standard combustion engine, it is possible to have a new layout of the semi-truck such that the seat can be located at a position nearer the front of the vehicle body 102 than in a conventional semi-truck, where eliminating the combustion engine enables a location of the door to improve access and safety when entering or exiting the vehicle.

Claim 1

1. A semi-truck vehicle comprising:

an electric drive train;

a body;

a cabin located within the body of the semi-truck vehicle, wherein the cabin comprises an interior that is configured to accommodate at least one person;

a seat located in the interior of the cabin that is configured for seating a user; and

a door comprising a width extending a horizontal length of the door, wherein the door provides ingress and egress to the interior of the cabin of the semi-truck vehicle; wherein the door is located on the body such that a frontmost side of the door is adjacent to a rearmost portion of a front wheel well and the width of the door is disposed between the frontmost side of the door and a rearmost side of the door, at least a portion of the door being positioned behind the seat and at least a portion of the seat is disposed to be forward of a line defining the rearmost portion of the front wheel well such that the door opens to provide ingress and egress into the cabin from a backside of the seat; and wherein the door is the foremost door providing ingress or egress into the interior of the cabin.

Tesla’s attack is based on various references, but mainly relies on a combination of 2 references - Modec and Messano - WO 2009/001086 A2 to Cunningham et al., applicant, Modec Limited, published Dec. 31, 2008 (“Modec”), and U.S. Patent No. 7,338,335 B1, issued Mar. 4, 2008, (“Messano”). Tesla relied primarily on Modec’s FIG. 1, reproduced below;

Tesla’s arguments as to how Modec disclosed the claimed door positioning with respect to the seat and the wheel well relied on the inherent assumption that FIG. 1 was drawn to scale and that a person skilled in the art could deduce the actual relative positioning of the various components through geometric determinations. However, Nikola was able to stop Tesla’s Petition in its tracks with the Patent Owners response and thus stop the case before it was ever instituted (which has traditionally been the best way for a patent owner to save its patent).

Specifically, Nikola argued that Tesla’s entire Petition relies on a single, rough figure, but the figure is not marked with dimensions and Modec does not even assert that the figure is drawn to scale (emphasize mine). This simple argument was sufficient to sink Tesla’s petition. The Board concluded that:

To Patent Owner’s point, we agree that the written description in Modec does not describe the angle or perspective that Figure 1 is intended to represent. … In reviewing the record, we are mindful of the principle that patent drawings are not working drawings and we must not disregard things clearly shown in patent drawings. However, our reviewing court “has repeatedly cautioned against over reliance on drawings that are neither expressly to scale nor linked to quantitative values in the specification.” (internal citations omitted)

This is exactly the point discussed in a post back in 2016 - “patent drawings do not define the precise proportions of the elements and may not be relied on to show particular sizes if the specification is completely silent on the issue, and that absent any written description in the specification of quantitative values, arguments based on measurement of a drawing are of little value.” See MPEP 2125.

While Tesla’s attack here came up short, it will be interesting to see how the overall dispute plays out.