News
After Tesla trademarked ‘CYBERBACKPACK,’ the product’s inventor sits at a crossroads
Riz Nwosu was inspired when he went to the Tesla Cybertruck unveiling in 2019. After snagging some pictures with the newly-revealed Cybertruck and company CEO Elon Musk, Riz developed a backpack inspired by the futuristic pickup he saw in Hawthorne, California, in late 2019. By December 2021, he had a prototype and a website. Less than six months later, he found Tesla had trademarked the name of his product.
Since December, Riz says he has been developing the “CYBERBACKPACK,” an idea that blossomed from a product unveiling nearly two and a half years ago. “I began designing and building what would become the Cyberbackpack,” Riz said in a blog post he published shortly after reports of Tesla trademarking the name. This all occurred just six months ago, with the first prototypes arriving at his house in March 2022. Later that month, the product would launch on ProductHunt and Spotify, as Riz had received plenty of inquiries from potential customers.
Elon Musk’s talk at Tesla Giga Texas Cyber Rodeo: updates and details
In March, Riz reached out to Tesla CEO Elon Musk on Twitter and other prominent figures within the company, looking to collaborate on the idea. He felt as if the Cyberbackpack would be something both he and the automaker could benefit from. The Cybertruck, with its mass appeal and loyal following, would likely do well in a “backpack” version, and it would be a dream for Riz, who purchased his first Tesla in March 2016.
On April 5, Tesla trademarked the “CYBERBACKPACK” name, bringing some speculation that the automaker had approached the fan to purchase or collaborate on his idea. After all, Riz’s website, Cyberbackpack.com, was not active when the initial reports came out earlier this week, which only fueled the speculation that Tesla probably liked the idea and decided to approach him about it. Riz was alarmed, however, as Tesla didn’t contact him about the bag, nor his idea or the name of the product. They had instead trademarked the name of the backpack, which sent Riz into a state of confusion.
November 2019
I attended the unveiling of the Cybertruck where I got to meet Elon Musk, a person I have admired and respected for many years.Pop Quiz: How many Africans do you see in this photo? It’s definitely not equal to one. pic.twitter.com/MTLpB4lEUA
— Riz (@Riz) April 14, 2022
“I decided to temporarily take the site down after receiving a bunch of orders and reaching out to Tesla,” Riz told Teslarati in a statement. “I thought it best to rework the site and get my manufacturer setup properly and then relaunch.”
“Tesla never contacted me.”
Teslarati contacted several patent and trademark law firms, and representatives essentially explained Tesla may have trademarked the name to protect itself from any repercussions that could come from the product’s design. One lawyer explained to us it was a “strategic” and “defensive” strategy that Tesla may use to avoid a situation like Apple did with its AirPods. Apple had so many counterfeit AirPod designs on the market that eventually, it had to do damage control on knockoffs, as some were catching fire or having other dangerous malfunctions. The issue is that Apple could prove that consumers immediately think of “Apple” when they see designs of AirPod knockoffs. This is essentially dangerous to Apple, even though they did not create the AirPod knockoffs, because consumer sentiment relates that design to Apple, and not to a third-party company.
Tesla could technically argue the same thing, legal experts told us. People may see the Cyberbackpack’s design and immediately think Tesla designed it. If negativity were to come from that design in any way, people would likely relate the backpack to Tesla and not to a third-party company, which could damage Tesla’s name.
Riz ultimately filed his own trademark application several days ago, with a “first use” date of December 2021, when he built the website and came up with the design. A loyal Tesla fan and supporter, Riz just wants to work with the company to help fulfill the idea. “My goal is to work with Tesla on some fashion to distribute the product. That’s why I reached out initially. However if that does not happen, then I would like to continue marketing and selling on my site,” he told us.
Dear Twitter, do your thing ??
.@elonmusk @Tesla @Teslarati @InsideEVs @ElectrekCo #ElonMusk #elon #tesla #cyberbackpack pic.twitter.com/gPxJVcp50X— Riz (@Riz) April 16, 2022
I’d love to hear from you! If you have any comments, concerns, or questions, please email me at joey@teslarati.com. You can also reach me on Twitter @KlenderJoey, or if you have news tips, you can email us at tips@teslarati.com.
Elon Musk flew under the radar with his recent purchase of a $1 billion energy company, according to Federal Trade Commission (FTC) documents.
Transaction number 202612350 listed Tesla and SpaceX frontman Elon Musk as the acquiring party and CF APR Super Holdings LLC as the seller, with New APR Energy, LLC as the acquired entity. The deal, which closed without public announcement, came to light on May 14.
BREAKING: Elon Musk acquires Jacksonville power company APR Energy in a deal valued at more than $1,000,000,000.00.
— Polymarket Money (@PolymarketMoney) July 15, 2026
Analysts inferred the deal’s scale from minority stakeholder disclosures, including one report of a 5 percent interest sold for approximately $50.4 million. Fortress Investment Group had purchased APR’s assets in late 2024, rebranded the operation as New APR Energy, and subsequently transferred ownership to Musk.
APR Energy specializes in rapidly deployable power infrastructure. The company maintains one of the world’s largest fleets of mobile gas and diesel turbines, with more than 1.1 gigawatts of generation capacity. Its modular units, which are often trailer-mounted, enable turnkey installations ranging from 20 MW to over 500 MW.
APR provides full engineering, procurement, construction, operation, and maintenance services for behind-the-meter power plants, serving everything from data centers, utilities, and industrial clients.
The firm has expanded aggressively to meet surging demand, recently adding turbines and deploying over 100 MW for a major AI hyperscaler. Its solutions bridge critical gaps where grid interconnections face delays of two to five years, according to Yahoo.
The acquisition means something more for Musk. As he continues to expand projects in artificial intelligence, especially xAI, his AI venture, there is a greater need to supply energy-intensive supercomputing clusters, including the Colossus project, with what they need: reliable and high-capacity power.
Ownership of APR provides immediate access to flexible generation assets that can be deployed adjacent to data centers, reducing dependence on a strained infrastructure. It also complements Tesla’s energy storage business, so Musk will be able to pull from his own entities to address the rapid scaling demands of AI training and compute.
Tesla had a petition protesting a recall to fix a potential issue with 2017-2023 Model Y and Model 3 vehicles’ headlights was denied, as the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) disagreed with the company’s opinion of things.
The recall covers approximately 19,917 Model Y and Model 3 vehicles built from 2017 to 2023. Tesla initially submitted a noncompliance report for the headlights on these vehicles on March 15, 2024. Tesla then petitioned for an exemption from the fix, which violated FMVSS No. 108 (40 CFR 571.108), arguing that the “noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety.
🚨 Tesla was denied a petition by the NHTSA to avoid a recall of 19,900 2017-2023 Model 3 and Model Y vehicles.
The NHTSA found that the vehicles’ headlights may exceed maximum lighting levels. Tesla argued it was inconsequential and did not require a recall. pic.twitter.com/m8Jmm1teLL
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) July 16, 2026
The NHTSA disagreed, stating that Tesla’s conclusion that the headlights do not increase any risk was not an opinion it shared. The agency said it disagreed with Tesla’s assumption that glare is not increased to surrounding traffic. This issue could be highlighted even more in certain weather conditions.
Tesla will be required to remedy the issue, the NHTSA ruled:
“In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA has decided that Tesla has not met its burden of persuasion that the subject FMVSS No. 108 noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety. Accordingly, Tesla’s petition is hereby denied, and Tesla is consequently obligated to provide notification of and free remedy for that noncompliance under 49 U.S.C. 30118 and 30120.”
The issue here appears to be the angle of the headlights and the brightness they emit during operation. The NHTSA report states that:
“Tesla’s headlamp supplier, Marelli Automotive Lighting, tested 25 right-hand and 25 left-hand lamps, and for this sample, found the maximum photometric intensity measured in the 10°U to 90°U and 90°L to 90°R zone was between 136.2 cd and 230.1 cd for the right-hand lamps and between 117.5 cd and 160.3 cd for the left-hand lamps. According to Tesla, these tests revealed that the photometric intensity of the right-hand and left-hand headlamp lower beam on the subject vehicles may measure as much as 230.1 cd in the 10°U to 90°U and 90°L to 90°R zone, exceeding the maximum photometric intensity by 105.1 cd. Additionally, Tesla states that a left-hand lamp tested by a Transport Canada recognized laboratory measured a maximum of 171.27 cd in the 10°U to 90°U and 90°L to 90°R zone. Despite these measurements exceeding the allowed photometric maximum of 125 cd, Tesla believes that the subject noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety.”
Tesla also argued at some points that the headlights had not been deemed responsible for any complaints, accidents, or injuries related to the noncompliance.
Lifestyle
NTSB findings on fatal Tesla crash tell a very different story
The NTSB confirmed the driver, not Tesla’s FSD, caused the fatal Texas house crash.
The National Transportation Safety Board released preliminary findings Wednesday confirming that a Tesla driver, not the vehicle’s software, caused a fatal crash in Katy, Texas in June. The driver, 44-year-old Michael Butler, had engaged Full Self-Driving Supervised mode on Rose Hollow Lane, a residential street with a 30 mph speed limit, before manually overriding the system by pressing the accelerator pedal all the way to 100%. Data recovered from the 2025 Tesla Model 3 showed the vehicle was traveling over 70 miles per hour when it struck a home and killed 76-year-old Martha Avila, who was inside. Weather was clear, the road was dry, and it was daylight.
Texas man charged in fatal Tesla crash where he blamed Autopilot
Butler told authorities he had passed out at the wheel. But security camera footage obtained by the NTSB told a different story, and showed the car accelerating through an intersection before leaving the road entirely. Police also found that Butler’s phone had Google searches including the terms “Tesla FSD not aggressive enough 2026” and “Tesla FSD too timid,” raising serious questions about how he was using the system before the crash. Butler has since been charged with manslaughter. The victim’s family has filed a lawsuit against both Butler and Tesla, alleging negligence.
The NTSB findings aligned directly with what Tesla VP of AI Software Ashok Elluswamy had already stated publicly on X in the weeks after the crash, writing that “the driver manually overrode self-driving by pressing the accelerator all the way to 100%.” The data confirmed his account.
Yup. In this case, the driver manually overrode self-driving by pressing the accelerator all the way to 100% of the accel pedal in this residential area. They reached a speed of 73 mph during the crash, and had the accelerator pressed even after the crash.
— Ashok Elluswamy (@aelluswamy) June 22, 2026
Elon Musk secretly acquires $1B energy company to power the AI future
Tesla has to fix a big problem with its old headlights, NHTSA says
