Tesla has asked the U.S. Supreme Court to decide whether the Patent and Trademark Office can block patent-validity challenges without any meaningful court review, escalating a fight that could matter to technology companies facing infringement suits. As reported by eletric-vehicles.com, Tesla’s petition follows the PTO’s refusal to open four inter partes reviews targeting patents asserted by Granite Vehicle Ventures.
The immediate dispute concerns patents tied to vehicle technology and a lawsuit Granite filed against Tesla in December 2024. Tesla filed its Patent Trial and Appeal Board petitions in May 2025, within the America Invents Act’s one-year statutory deadline. The agency nevertheless denied review after concluding that the district-court trial would probably finish first.
That forecast did not hold. The Eastern District of Texas case was transferred to the Northern District of California in December 2025, where trial is now scheduled for June 2028—well after the PTAB proceeding Tesla sought could have produced a final written decision.
Tesla is not principally asking the Supreme Court to decide whether its particular petitions should have been granted. Its larger argument is that the Federal Circuit has treated discretionary denials as effectively untouchable, even where a petitioner says the PTO has invented decision rules that Congress did not authorize.
The Federal Circuit rejected Tesla’s February mandamus request, relying on the statute’s instruction that institution decisions are “final and nonappealable” and on prior decisions limiting review to colorable constitutional claims. In Tesla’s view, that approach leaves no judicial check when the agency allegedly exceeds its authority under the patent statute.
Tesla’s petition attacks the practical effect of that position: a Director could adopt arbitrary screening rules and companies would have no route to challenge them. Whether the Supreme Court agrees may turn on a narrow but consequential distinction—between review of an ordinary discretionary judgment and review of an agency action claimed to be ultra vires, or beyond statutory power.
Tesla argues that its case shows the weakness of relying on trial-date forecasts. It had also offered a broad stipulation giving up invalidity defenses in court, an effort intended to reduce duplication between the litigation and PTAB review. Yet the PTO still denied institution, despite the challenged patents having issued in 2023 and despite the later shift in the court schedule.
Patent owners have a competing argument. Inter partes review was designed as a faster alternative to litigation, not an additional front in every infringement case. Where a jury trial will resolve the same validity issues first, denying review can protect patent holders from parallel proceedings and preserve PTAB resources.
The Federal Circuit’s February orders rejecting mandamus petitions from Tesla, Intel and Kahoot! show how hard that question has become to raise through the existing appellate process. The court has consistently emphasized that a refusal to institute review does not itself alter the patent’s legal status; the underlying infringement litigation can continue.
For Windows ecosystem companies, OEMs and enterprise software suppliers, the stakes are not confined to Tesla or autonomous-driving patents. Inter partes review is a commonly used defense against asserted software, networking, semiconductor and device patents, often offering a more specialized and less expensive validity forum than full district-court litigation.
The Supreme Court has not yet said whether it will take Tesla’s case or consolidate it with the Google and Intel petitions. But the June 2028 trial date in Tesla’s underlying dispute gives the company a pointed example of the practical issue: a review denied to avoid duplication may now be the proceeding that would have delivered the earlier answer.
That forecast did not hold. The Eastern District of Texas case was transferred to the Northern District of California in December 2025, where trial is now scheduled for June 2028—well after the PTAB proceeding Tesla sought could have produced a final written decision.
Tesla Targets the Reviewability Wall
Tesla is not principally asking the Supreme Court to decide whether its particular petitions should have been granted. Its larger argument is that the Federal Circuit has treated discretionary denials as effectively untouchable, even where a petitioner says the PTO has invented decision rules that Congress did not authorize.The Federal Circuit rejected Tesla’s February mandamus request, relying on the statute’s instruction that institution decisions are “final and nonappealable” and on prior decisions limiting review to colorable constitutional claims. In Tesla’s view, that approach leaves no judicial check when the agency allegedly exceeds its authority under the patent statute.
Tesla’s petition attacks the practical effect of that position: a Director could adopt arbitrary screening rules and companies would have no route to challenge them. Whether the Supreme Court agrees may turn on a narrow but consequential distinction—between review of an ordinary discretionary judgment and review of an agency action claimed to be ultra vires, or beyond statutory power.
The Trial-Date Rule Becomes the Test Case
The PTO’s discretionary-denial framework weighs parallel patent litigation, including whether a district-court trial is likely to conclude before the Board reaches a final decision. The intended logic is straightforward: avoid spending agency and party resources on a validity review that duplicates an imminent court trial.Tesla argues that its case shows the weakness of relying on trial-date forecasts. It had also offered a broad stipulation giving up invalidity defenses in court, an effort intended to reduce duplication between the litigation and PTAB review. Yet the PTO still denied institution, despite the challenged patents having issued in 2023 and despite the later shift in the court schedule.
Patent owners have a competing argument. Inter partes review was designed as a faster alternative to litigation, not an additional front in every infringement case. Where a jury trial will resolve the same validity issues first, denying review can protect patent holders from parallel proceedings and preserve PTAB resources.
A Coordinated Challenge From Big Tech
Tesla’s filing joins related Supreme Court petitions from Google and Intel, while Kahoot! has pursued a similar challenge involving the PTO’s “settled expectations” policy for older patents. Those cases attack different discretionary-denial rationales, but they converge on the same question: can federal courts review whether the PTO’s institution policies exceed the discretion Congress granted?The Federal Circuit’s February orders rejecting mandamus petitions from Tesla, Intel and Kahoot! show how hard that question has become to raise through the existing appellate process. The court has consistently emphasized that a refusal to institute review does not itself alter the patent’s legal status; the underlying infringement litigation can continue.
For Windows ecosystem companies, OEMs and enterprise software suppliers, the stakes are not confined to Tesla or autonomous-driving patents. Inter partes review is a commonly used defense against asserted software, networking, semiconductor and device patents, often offering a more specialized and less expensive validity forum than full district-court litigation.
The Supreme Court has not yet said whether it will take Tesla’s case or consolidate it with the Google and Intel petitions. But the June 2028 trial date in Tesla’s underlying dispute gives the company a pointed example of the practical issue: a review denied to avoid duplication may now be the proceeding that would have delivered the earlier answer.