IP Litigation Between California Electric Car Companies in Tesla Motors, Inc. v. Fisker Automotive, Inc.

 In April of 2008, Tesla Motors, Inc. sued Fisker Automotive, Inc., Fisker’s founder and CEO Henrik Fisker and other related entities in the Superior Court of San Mateo County (California), alleging that Fisker stole trade secrets to design Fisker’s own electric car, the Fisker Karma.  Tesla further alleged that Fisker committed fraud and breach of contract, among other claims. 

Tesla claimed that it hired Henrik Fisker to design the interior of its high-performance electric sedan, the Model S, previously known as the “White Star” project.  According to Tesla, Fisker took confidential technical information from Tesla while working on the White Star project and used that information to design and build its own four-door, plug-in, luxury sedan.  Tesla stated that it paid Fisker more than $800,000 for the design work performed on the White Star project and sued Fisker for the return of this money, along with other unspecified damages.

In May, Fisker requested that the judge assigned to the San Mateo case direct the parties’ dispute to private arbitration.  Fisker’s request was based on a clause in the contract between Fisker and Tesla, which required that any disputes between them be decided by an arbitrator in Orange County, California within 90 days.  The judge granted Fisker’s request for arbitration in June, and the San Mateo case stayed pending the result of the arbitration.

On November 3, the private arbitrator issued an interim award finding in favor of Fisker. According to a press release issued by Fisker, the arbitrator found Tesla’s allegations that Fisker had stolen trade secrets as “baseless and neither brought nor pursued in good faith,” and that “the evidence was overwhelming that Fisker did nothing wrong.” 

The current case docket in the San Mateo case indicates that Tesla and Fisker are scheduled to meet with the judge on January 9, 2008, presumably to discuss the impact of the arbitrator’s decision, and to determine whether any issues remain for the judge to decide.

For further information about this topic, please contact Akin Gump.



No Comments »



No comments yet.

Leave a comment