Tesla’s open patent pledge looked like a peace offering. What it actually did was something far more calculated.

The Fine Print Everyone Missed

If your company is building EV components, automated assembly systems, or anything that touches the electric vehicle supply chain, there is a real chance you are already operating inside someone else’s patent portfolio. That’s not a hypothetical. It’s how this industry works, and it’s accelerating.

In 2014, Tesla made headlines by announcing it would not initiate patent lawsuits against anyone who, in good faith, wanted to use its technology. It was a bold, counterintuitive move, and many observers read it as a sign that Tesla had stepped back from IP competition entirely.

They weren’t reading the fine print. What Tesla pledged was access to its product patents. What it kept close was something arguably more valuable: the patented manufacturing processes, robotic assembly techniques, battery production methods, and automated quality control systems that allow it to build electric vehicles at a scale and speed no legacy automaker has yet matched. It is worth noting that Tesla has since updated the language of that pledge, and the “good faith” carve-out has always left meaningful legal ambiguity for anyone relying on it too heavily.

That distinction, between what you make and how you make it, is the patent story that rarely gets told. And right now, it’s heating up.

Process Patents Move to Center Stage

In 2025, a non-practicing entity filed suit against a major vehicle manufacturer over alleged infringement of patented automated assembly and quality control systems. The case highlighted a category of patent that rarely appears in mainstream coverage of the EV industry: manufacturing process patents.

These are not patents on battery chemistry or electric motors. They are patents on how a vehicle gets built, the robotic sequencing, the sensor-based inspection systems, the software that coordinates a production line running at scale. As EV adoption accelerates and legacy automakers race to retool their manufacturing operations, the patents covering how to build these vehicles efficiently are becoming just as contested as the patents covering what goes inside them.

What is a non-practicing entity?

A non-practicing entity (NPE), sometimes called a patent assertion entity, is a company that holds patents but does not manufacture products. It monetizes its portfolio through licensing and litigation. NPE activity tends to spike in sectors where manufacturing innovation is happening fast and patent portfolios are being built, and then changing hands, rapidly. The EV space currently meets both conditions.  While NPE’s are often demonized as “trolls,” this is not necessarily a fair characterization, as the NPE may have acquired the patents from the actual inventor of the technology.

Three Layers of the EV Patent Landscape

The intellectual property landscape for electric vehicles operates on at least three distinct layers. Each one presents different strategic considerations for manufacturers, suppliers, and startups, and understanding where you sit within them is the starting point for any serious IP strategy.

Layer 1: Product Patents, Battery Chemistry, Drivetrains, and Electronics

This is the layer most people think of when they imagine EV patents. Battery cell chemistry, thermal management systems, drivetrain architecture, regenerative braking systems, and charging interfaces all sit here. It is a fiercely competitive space, with thousands of patent families held by automakers, battery manufacturers, Tier 1 suppliers, and research institutions. Chinese OEMs and battery manufacturers have filed aggressively over the past several years and now hold portfolios that rival or exceed those of traditional Western automakers in key technical areas.

Layer 2: Manufacturing Process Patents, How You Build It

This is where Tesla’s real moat lives, and increasingly where the litigation is moving. Patents covering robotic assembly sequences, machine-vision quality control, automated welding and painting systems, and factory-floor AI coordination are valuable precisely because they are hard to see, hard to reverse-engineer, and hard to design around once a competitor has locked them in. Tesla’s Gigacasting process, die-casting large sections of a vehicle frame in a single step, is an example of a manufacturing approach that has been the subject of patent filings, though the scope of protection around specific techniques in that area remains an active and evolving question, as some underlying die-casting methods draw on prior art from other industries.

Layer 3: Software and Systems Patents, The Intelligence Layer

Over-the-air update systems, battery management software, autonomous driving algorithms, and fleet connectivity platforms are all patentable, and all actively being patented. This layer is where the lines between automotive IP and software IP blur, and it is increasingly where startups and tech-adjacent companies hold meaningful portfolios that can disrupt traditional automakers who may not have built significant software IP during earlier decades.

What This Means If You’re Building in This Space

The EV patent landscape is not just a story about Tesla, Toyota, and GM. For founders, suppliers, and innovation-stage companies working adjacent to the automotive space, the practical stakes are immediate.

EV supply chain companies are prime targets. Battery cell manufacturers, thermal management suppliers, charging equipment makers, and robotics integrators sit at the intersection of multiple patent portfolios held by companies with significant litigation resources. A freedom-to-operate analysis before product launch is not optional in this market. It is essential, and it is far less expensive than defending a lawsuit after the fact.

Manufacturing process innovations are patentable. If your company has developed a novel method for assembling EV components, inspecting battery cells, or coordinating robotic systems on a production line, that process can potentially be protected. Many companies file only on what they make, not how they make it. That leaves significant IP value sitting unprotected.

NPE activity is a real and growing risk. As EV-related patent portfolios mature and change hands, assertions from non-practicing entities will increase. Understanding your exposure, and building a defensive portfolio, is part of operating in this space now, not something to address after you receive a demand letter.

Trade secrets matter where patents cannot reach. A patent application requires public disclosure. If your innovation is in a manufacturing process that competitors cannot easily observe or reverse-engineer, trade secret protection may provide longer and more durable protection than a published patent would. This is a genuine strategic choice, not a fallback, and it deserves deliberate analysis.

Three Questions to Ask Before You Enter the EV Supply Chain

1.  Have you mapped the patent landscape in your specific technical area, including process patents held by competitors and NPEs?

2.  Does your own manufacturing process or assembly method represent a novel innovation that could be protected, either through patents or trade secret strategy?

3.  Do your supplier agreements include IP indemnification provisions that would protect you if a component you purchase turns out to infringe a third-party patent?

Before Your Next Product Launch

The EV revolution is, at its core, a manufacturing revolution. And manufacturing is protected by patents, trade secrets, and a rapidly evolving IP landscape that is moving faster than most companies’ legal strategies.

A freedom-to-operate analysis on your manufacturing process, conducted before you scale, could be the difference between a clean launch and an expensive litigation you did not see coming. Whether you are building battery components, designing automated systems, or entering the EV supply chain for the first time, the right time to map your exposure is now.

Reach out to schedule a consultation. We can help you understand what’s protectable, where your risks are, and how to build a strategy before the next wave of enforcement activity finds you.

This article is provided for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. IP strategy decisions should be made in consultation with a qualified patent or intellectual property attorney familiar with the specific facts of your situation.