Tesla has filed a new patent for “Parallel Processing System Runtime State Reload,” comprising of a system of three or more processors working in conjunction to effectively eliminate the possibility of hardware failure during the use of Autopilot or Full Self-Driving. The patent outlines a robust system of parallel processors that can operate in the event that one of them fails or experiences a runtime state error. “Should one of the parallel processors fail, at least one other processor would be available to continue performing autonomous driving functions,” the patent shows.
The patent was filed and published on August 26th and comes just a week after the company’s Artificial Intelligence Day event that was held last Thursday. Outlining a system of at least three processors operating in parallel, it is monitored by circuitry and can locate and identify if one of the three parallel-operating processors is having a runtime state error. The circuitry will then identify a second processor to switch to in the event of a runtime error, access the runtime state of the second processor, and load the runtime state of the second, operational processor into the first processor, which is experiencing a runtime error.
(Credit: Tesla)
Tesla describes the patent in detail:
“A system on a Chip (SoC) includes a plurality of processing systems arranged on a single integrated circuit. Each of these separate processing systems typically performs a corresponding set of processing functions. The separate processing systems typically interconnect via one or more communication bus structures that include an N-bit wide data bus (N, an integer greater than one). Some SoCs are deployed within systems that require high availability, e.g., financial processing systems, autonomous driving systems, medical processing systems, and air traffic control systems, among others. These parallel processing systems typically operate upon the same input data and include substantially identical processing components, e.g., pipeline structure, so that each of the parallel processing systems, when correctly operating, produces substantially the same output. Thus, should one of the parallel processors fail, at least one other processor would be available to continue performing autonomous driving functions.”
Technically speaking, the autonomous vehicle needs only one processor to function as described in an accurate fashion. However, these processors can be overloaded with data when loading into the Neural Network and could experience short-term and non-permanent operational errors. When this occurs, the system would then switch to one of the other processors for normal operation, with at least two backup processors in this patent, as it repeatedly mentions a series of three.
Tesla details its self-driving Supercomputer that will bring in the Dojo era
The second processor would then activate and load the runtime state into the first processor to make the primary processor chip operational once again:
“Thus, in order to overcome the above-described shortcomings, among other shortcomings, a parallel processing system of an embodiment of the present disclosure includes at least three processors operating in parallel, state monitoring circuitry, and state reload circuitry. The state monitoring circuitry couples to the at least three parallel processors and is configured to monitor runtime states of the at least three parallel processors and identify a first processor of the at least three parallel processors having at least one runtime state error. The state reload circuitry couples to the at least three parallel processors and is configured to select a second processor of the at least three parallel processors for state reload, access a runtime state of the second processor, and load the runtime state of the second processor into the first processor.”
The purpose of this patent is to continue system availability, even when the primary processor is experiencing functionality issues due to overuse. The two additional processors essentially act as “backup” and can determine whether autonomous driving systems are meant to be enabled if the first processor experiences an error. “With one particular example of this aspect, the parallel processing system supports autonomous driving and the respective sub-systems of the at least three parallel processors are safety sub-systems that determine whether autonomous driving is to be enabled.”
FIG. 13 is a timing diagram illustrating clocks of the circuits of FIGS. 8 and 10 according to one or more other described embodiments. As shown, the runtime state (data1) of first processor/first sub-system is determined to have at least one error. In response to this determination by the state monitoring/state reload circuitry, the signal st_reload1 is asserted to initiate the loading of runtime state (data2) from second processor/second sub-system into the first processor/first sub-system. With the embodiment of FIG. 13, a first clock (clk1) is used for the first processor/first sub-system and a second clock (clk1) is used for the second processor/second sub-system. There exists a positive skew between the first clock (clk1) and the second clock (clk2), resulting in a late cycle of the loading of the runtime state (data2) of the second processor/second sub-system into the first processor/sub-system, potentially resulting in errors in the runtime state reload process. (Credit: U.S. Patent Office)
It also appears that this patent aligns with Tesla CEO Elon Musk’s previous description of the Dojo self-driving Supercomputer, which was detailed at AI Day. To increase the accuracy and encourage the parallel operation of the processors, the system will utilize a clock input to calibrate the two processors, increasing the accuracy of the system.
Tesla has focused on accurate FSD operation and has revised its strategy on several occasions. After moving to a camera-only approach earlier this year for the Model 3 and Model Y, the company is experiencing more accurate FSD operation through the harmonized processing of its eight exterior cameras. The operation of internal processors, which are responsible for compiling, compressing, and sending data to the Neural Network, can fail temporarily, so the presence of backup processors to continue comprehending self-driving data is a positive idea.
The full patent is available below:
Tesla Patent Parallel Processing System Runtime State Reload by Joey Klender on Scribd
Investor's Corner
New drone video shows Tesla’s Optimus Factory reaching a turning point
New drone footage shows Tesla’s dedicated Optimus factory steel frame nearing completion at Giga Texas.
Tesla’s dedicated Optimus factory at Gigafactory Texas is closing in on a finished steel frame, according to drone footage posted Thursday afternoon by longtime site observer Joe Tegtmeyer. In the video, Tegtmeyer said structural steel assembly is now about five column grids away from reaching the building’s north perimeter beam, putting the primary skeleton in its final stretch roughly six months after Tesla broke ground on the North Campus site in late March.
The Giga Texas Optimus Factory latest update … construction keeps moving fast!
Steel assembly is now only about 5 column grids from the north perimeter beam. Concrete is going in on the three upper floors, rebar is still being laid for more pours, and footing / grade-beam work… pic.twitter.com/qvFPvwnYzW
— Joe Tegtmeyer 🚀 🤠🛸😎 (@JoeTegtmeyer) September 17, 2026
Tegtmeyer’s footage shows concrete already going in on three upper floors while crews continue laying rebar and pouring grade beam footings at ground level. That kind of parallel work, steel rising at one end of the site while concrete sets at the other, is a scheduling approach Tesla used at the original Giga Texas building and appears to be repeating here to save time before the plant’s targeted 2027 production start.
Teslarati has tracked the building’s progress since Tesla confirmed construction was officially underway in May, when the first steel structure went up on what was then bare, reclaimed land. The facility is part of a more than 5.2 million square foot expansion of Giga Texas’s North Campus that Tesla has said will eventually run nearly the length of the existing vehicle factory, over 4,000 feet, while sitting somewhat narrower. Musk has pegged the long term output target at 10 million Optimus units a year once the line is running at full capacity, a volume that would dwarf the one million unit pilot line Tesla is standing up separately at its Fremont, California factory.
Tesla Giga Texas to feature massive Optimus V4 production line
The Texas facility sits alongside another major buildout on the same campus. Terafab, the joint Tesla and SpaceX chip fabrication plant that will eventually supply the silicon running Optimus units in the field. Housing robot assembly and chip production on the same grounds is a deliberate supply chain decision, cutting down on the shipping and lead time that would otherwise sit between the two.
Tesla has not given an updated timeline beyond its previously stated goal of bringing high volume Optimus production online at the site in the summer of 2027. Fremont’s smaller pilot line began mass producing the current Gen 3 robot in January, with that plant expected to build tens of thousands of units this year primarily to generate the real world data Tesla needs to refine the robot’s software before Giga Texas ramps up. Six months of visible construction progress, tracked almost entirely through Tegtmeyer’s recurring drone flights, gives the clearest outside look yet at how seriously Tesla is treating that 2027 deadline.
Investor's Corner
Tesla and SpaceX take “Terafab” Trademark fight to Federal Court
Tesla and SpaceX sue a small Illinois firm after cease and desist letters over Terafab.
Tesla and SpaceX are asking a federal judge to rule that their planned Terafab chip factory does not infringe a small Illinois company’s trademark, a request that arrives only after months of quiet negotiation broke down this summer.
The dispute traces to May 18, when Tesla filed three U.S. trademark applications for “Terafab” and “Tesla Terafab,” covering semiconductor chips and related chip making services. TERA-print LLC, a nanotechnology company that has held a federal trademark for “Tera-Fab” since 2021, responded five days later with a cease and desist letter. According to the lawsuit, first reported by Reuters, TERA-print argued that Tesla and SpaceX’s use of “Terafab” would confuse consumers familiar with its own trademark, which covers a desktop photolithography printer sold to researchers for sensor and bioengineering work.
What stands out in the filing is the timing of TERA-print’s own paperwork. One day before sending that cease and desist letter, on May 22, TERA-print applied to expand its existing registration to cover semiconductor materials, silicon chips, nanoelectronic devices and AI design services, categories it had not previously claimed. Tesla and SpaceX call that filing opportunistic in their complaint, noting it arrived two months after Tesla’s public Terafab announcement and just days after Tesla’s own trademark applications went in.
Elon Musk launches TERAFAB: The $25B Tesla-SpaceXAI chip factory that will rewire the AI industry
By June 10, TERA-print was threatening to sue for federal trademark infringement, false designation of origin and unfair competition, the complaint states. Rather than wait to be sued, Tesla, SpaceX and SpaceXAI met with TERA-print six separate times between June and August trying to resolve the dispute directly. Those talks collapsed, and the companies filed for declaratory judgment this week in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, asking a judge to find that “Terafab” does not infringe TERA-print’s mark before TERA-print can file a claim of its own.
TERA-print isn’t backing down. The company told PCMag it discussed a settlement with Tesla as recently as September 2 and feels misled by what it called Tesla’s professed interest in settling. Its CTO, Andrey Ivankin, said TERA-print holds a Defense Department contract to fabricate semiconductors and partially owns Mattiq Inc., an AI company built on TERA-print’s products, and that the company will vigorously defend its rights.
Tesla and SpaceX argue the overlap is superficial. Terafab is planned as a $16.8 billion complex spanning roughly 100 million square feet at the Grimes County site SpaceX confirmed last month, built to produce chips for Optimus robots, Tesla’s AI computing needs and SpaceX’s orbital data center ambitions, a scale and purpose the companies say no reasonable consumer would confuse with a tabletop lab printer. TERA-print’s product line has stayed focused on lithography tools for biological and sensor research since it registered its mark in 2021.
The trademark fight is the second legal dispute tied to the Terafab project in the past week, following a separate SpaceX suit aimed at keeping company records about the facility out of public view, as KBTX reported. Whether construction proceeds under the Terafab name now depends on a federal judge in Austin.
News
NHTSA just escalated its Tesla Cybercab investigation in a big way
NHTSA escalated its Cybercab audit into a sworn Special Order with a September 30 deadline.
Federal regulators have moved from asking Tesla questions about its Cybercab to demanding sworn answers. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration issued a Special Order that requires a Tesla officer to sign an affidavit attesting to the completeness of the company’s responses, with a deadline of September 30.
The order builds on Audit Query AQ26002, which NHTSA opened on September 3, the same day Tesla began commercial Cybercab service in Austin. Teslarati covered that initial inquiry when it surfaced, noting the agency wanted to understand how Tesla certified a vehicle with no permanently attached steering wheel, pedals, or mirrors as compliant with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. A Special Order is a different tool and converts a fact finding review into a legally enforceable demand, the same mechanism NHTSA used against Tesla in 2023 during its Autopilot investigation.
Several of the 21 requests target a specific gap in Cybercab’s design. One asks whether Tesla used temporarily attached human controls at any point to help certify the vehicle, and if so, which standards depended on that equipment being present. Another quotes an existing rule directly: “The service brakes shall be activated by means of a foot control.” Cybercab has no foot pedal. NHTSA wants a detailed explanation of how the vehicle satisfies that requirement, and how it complies without the kind of exemption granted to Zoox in July under Part 555, the regulatory pathway built for steering wheel free vehicles.
The order does not claim Cybercab is unsafe or that Tesla broke a rule. It requires Tesla to explain, under oath, the reasoning behind decisions the company already made when it self-certified the vehicle. That distinction matters, but so does the exposure. Motor1’s reporting, summarized here, put potential civil penalty exposure as high as $139 million if NHTSA later finds the certification was flawed, on top of whatever criminal risk comes with a false sworn statement.
Tesla has not said publicly how it plans to respond. Cybercab is still carrying passengers in Austin through the Robotaxi app while the September 30 deadline approaches, and the company has continued expanding the vehicle’s footprint even as the regulatory question remains open. The Special Order does not pause any of that and just sets a date by which Tesla has to put its certification logic on the record, with a company officer’s name attached to it.
New drone video shows Tesla’s Optimus Factory reaching a turning point
Tesla and SpaceX take “Terafab” Trademark fight to Federal Court
