News
Tesla Semi lawsuit drags on with small victory for Nikola Motor
Almost two years ago, Nikola Motors surprised the trucking market by filing a $2 billion lawsuit alleging that the Tesla Semi copied several design elements from the Nikola One, the truck-maker’s flagship hydrogen long hauler. News about the patent lawsuit has been scarce for over a year, but recent updates indicate that Nikola has snatched a small victory from the Silicon Valley-based electric car maker.
Nikola’s case listed several characteristics of the One that were allegedly copied by Tesla. These included the Semi’s wraparound windshield, mid-entry door, front fenders, and the all-electric truck’s aerodynamic shape. To highlight its point, Nikola stated that the similar drag coefficients between the One (0.37) and the Semi (0.36) was further proof that the battery electric long hauler was copied from the hydrogen fuel-cell sleeper cab.
Excerpts from Nikola’s lawsuit pointed out that the Semi’s design had caused confusion among the One’s customers, diverting sales from the hydrogen truck maker to Tesla. Nikola also argued that these confusions might result in the Semi’s problems being attributed to the One, such as those resulting from Tesla’s batteries and Autopilot software. These, according to Nikola, are causing damage to its brand.
“Tesla has had problems with its batteries starting fires and its autonomous features causing fatal accidents. Should these problems arise with the Tesla Semi, the market will attribute these problems to Nikola because of the similarities between the two vehicles. Customers will also impute the Tesla Semi’s limitations (distance and charging time) to Nikola, which will make Nikola’s product less appealing to customers,” the hydrogen truck maker noted in its complaint.
Unfortunately for Nikola, cases that are centered on design patents are very difficult to prove. This point was especially highlighted in August 2018 when the US Patent Office awarded Tesla a pair of design patents for the Semi that actually listed the Nikola One as a reference, which meant that the examiner deemed Tesla’s design as unique. For Nikola to win its case against Tesla, it would have to prove that the US Patent Examiner made a mistake when comparing the Semi and the One’s designs, and that’s a very difficult point to argue.
Yet if recent tweets from Nikola CEO Trevor Milton are any indication, it appears that the hydrogen truck maker has stood by its lawsuit against Tesla. As it turned out, Tesla had filed a request with the Patent Trial and Appeal Board in September 2019 asking for a review to invalidate Nikola’s side door patent for the One. This request seems to have failed. Granted, it is a very small victory for Nikola, considering that it is fighting an incredibly steep uphill battle. Still, the dismissal of Tesla’s effort is a victory for the hydrogen truck maker nonetheless.
“Tesla loses bid to invalidate @nikolamotor patents in USPTO dispute. USPTO not only upheld Nikola semi truck important patents but refused Tesla’s ask to modify our patents. Two billion-dollar lawsuit moving forward. We will defend our company’s IP no matter who it is,” Milton wrote on Twitter.
In a statement to Forbes, Nikola Chief Legal Officer Britton Worthen lauded the decision, stating that the development was “obviously favorable” and that the company believes the matter was “decided correctly.” Tesla, for its part, has declined to comment. That being said, a Tesla spokesperson has noted in the past that “It’s patently obvious there is no merit to this lawsuit.” Elon Musk does not seem to be bothered by the suit either, noting in a previous earnings call that the entire situation is a case of fate loving irony.
Ultimately, the Nikola One may very well be beaten to the market by the Tesla Semi. While the One was unveiled prior to Tesla’s all-electric truck, prototypes of the Semi have been conducting real-world testing since the vehicles were unveiled. Recent sightings of the all-electric trucks suggest that the vehicles are now being tested in harsh conditions. This hints that Tesla may actually be on track to start early production runs of the Semi sometime later this year, as hinted at by the company in the past. Nikola, for its part, seems to be on track to release the Nikola Two, a shorter-range, battery electric truck, before the One. The company expects to start production of its trucks next year.
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.
In a new interview on Wednesday, Tesla uber bull Ron Baron said that anyone looking to buy the company’s stock should do so as soon as they can.
Baron, founder and CEO of Baron Capital and one of Tesla’s most persistent institutional bulls, used a CNBC Squawk Box appearance on Wednesday to deliver a familiar message with fresh urgency: In his opinion, Tesla stock is a buy:
“The time to buy the stock is now. FSD is catching on, and it’s going to be bigger and bigger. 55% of new buyers are buying it (Teslas) with FSD. It’s going to be everywhere. It’s safer.”
The Baron Capital frontman’s case is built around Full Self-Driving. Tesla reported 1.48 million active FSD subscriptions in the second quarter, up 56 percent year over year, and company officials have said roughly 55 percent of new North American deliveries left with a subscription enabled.
Baron framed that attach rate as proof the product is moving from enthusiast extra to default expectation, and as a reason software, not just vehicle volume, should drive the next phase of value.
His conviction on Tesla shares is not theoretical, as Baron Capital made its first Tesla investment in 2014, after years of meetings that began around the 2010 IPO roadshow. The firm later built a large SpaceX position starting in 2017.
Ron Baron today in new interview on Tesla:
“The time to buy the stock is now. FSD is catching on, and it’s going to be bigger and bigger. 55% of new buyers are buying it (Teslas) with FSD. It’s going to be everywhere. It’s safer.” pic.twitter.com/Rv5PB0bVZ2
— Sawyer Merritt (@SawyerMerritt) September 16, 2026
Baron said those Musk-led bets have generated about $30 billion of the $71 billion in profits Baron Capital has produced for clients. He put the firm’s current exposure at roughly $25 billion in SpaceX and $5 billion in Tesla. Personally, he described SpaceX as his largest holding, at about $5 billion, with about $1.5 billion in Tesla and additional Tesla exposure through the firm’s funds.
That concentration is also a statement of loyalty. Asked about talk of a SpaceX-Tesla combination, Baron said he had already walked Elon Musk through arguments for and against a deal, then declined to repeat them on air. His public position was simpler: “Whatever you decide is better is what I’m going to support,” he said to Musk.
Baron also said that he picked up the farewell edition of the Model S after Tesla decided to sunset the vehicle earlier this year, calling it his favorite car he’s ever driven.
Tesla and SpaceX take “Terafab” Trademark fight to Federal Court
NHTSA just escalated its Tesla Cybercab investigation in a big way
