Tag: lawsuit

AutomotiveEngineeringExpert Witness

Tesla Whistleblower Alleges Inflated Production, Safety Hazards

Former Tesla employee Martin Tripp has blown the whistle accusing the company of what may be securities fraud peppered with dangerous safety concerns.

This is an update on our last post: Tesla Trade Secrets Lawsuit: Investigators & Expert Witnesses.

It seems this story is just heating up. Once again, Cyrus Farivar from Ars Technica, is doing some excellent reporting on this story and I only hope to follow in his footsteps with my own expert witness-based input.

Last Friday, former Tesla employee Martin Tripp, submitted a whistleblower tip to the SEC. According to Mr. Farivar’s reporting, Tripp did so using a “TCR” (tip, complaint, or referral form). Mr. Tripp is now represented by a lawyer specialized in whistleblower cases. Interestingly enough, he still is not represented by counsel in the Tesla trade secrets lawsuit filed against him and his lawyer on the whistleblower claim does not represent him in that suit.

CNN Money has some details of what is alleged in the claim to the SEC. Tripp alleges that Tesla regularly inflates productions numbers on the Model 3, meaning fewer than the supposed 5,000 vehicles a week are actually being produced. He further contends car batteries are defective because they contain dangerous punctures and Tesla had decreased vehicle safety specifications, all of which increases the likelihood of battery explosions and safety hazards.

If any of the above allegations are true, we are entering into the arena where the following expert witnesses may be needed in a whistle-blower litigation by the SEC.

Securities Fraud:

If Tesla is actually inflating number of vehicles produced and claiming they are meeting their production goals, they could be dealing with some securities fraud issues in addition to opening themselves up to a potential shareholder lawsuit. Claiming they’d be building 5,000 Model 3‘s each week, but not doing so, could be seen by the SEC as an attempt to manipulate the stock price and lie to shareholders, to which the directors and officers of the company owe a fiduciary duty. If this is the case, I expect to see reports from experts in director and officer liability and corporate governance.

Automotive Safety & Engineering:

If there are issues of defective or damaged car batteries being installed in the automobiles, the SEC will need experts to investigate, inspect, and report the validity of these claims. I’m going to avoid the classic product liability issues that may stem from these allegations since those would be involved in a different lawsuit.

However, the SEC will have to employ automotive safety and automotive engineering specialists to determine the legitimacy of Mr. Tripp’s claims. Is he making claims maliciously because he’s a disgruntled former employee? Or, are the batteries and the vehicles truly dangerous?

Another expert likely to be needed to test Mr. Tripp’s accusations would be a specialist in battery engineering. The big selling point for Tesla… the cars are sleek and environmentally friendly because they are electric (battery powered). However, Tripp alleges there are dangerous holes in the batteries.

If you’re like me, you know very little about the inner-workings of your automobile. I do know that a hole in a battery is not good, but the SEC can’t have me do a once over and let them know if the “holes” Mr. Tripp saw are truly dangerous. A battery expert will have to inspect a sample of Tesla car batteries to determine any legitimacy to his claims.

That’s the latest in this ongoing drama. I expect, however, we will be seeing more on the trade secrets matter, whistle-blowing matter, and any counter claims that may be filed. Until then…

Expert WitnessIntellectual PropertylegaltechSocial Media

Tinder v. Bumble: Swipe Right for Your Next Patent Infringement Expert Witness

Last Friday I was sitting at my desk trying to find the next topic to blog about. Friday was an incredibly slow news day and nothing had piqued my interest. So I reached out to some lawyer-friends in the LegalMinds Mastermind Group for some ideas. I received a lot of feedback with some really great ideas. However, this Tinder v. Bumble lawsuit sounded like the most fun. A special thanks to patent lawyer, Karima Gulick, for the idea.

In fact, I had not even heard about this lawsuit until Karima mentioned it. It seems that Tinder’s parent company, Match Group (think Match.com), has decided to sue Bumble for patent infringement. For those who haven’t heard of Bumble, it is another popular dating app that allows women to make the first move. It seems they are now using very similar features to Tinder. An article in The Verge described the two patents at issue:

“…one called ‘Matching Process System and Method,’ in which users swipe cards and mutually select one another, as well as ‘Display Screen or Portion Thereof With a Graphical User Interface of a Mobile Device,’ which it describes as an ‘ornamental aspect’ of Tinder’s App. The lawsuit also points to similarities between each companies’ apps, and Bumble’s descriptions of ‘swiping’ run afoul of Tinder’s registered trademarks.”

It seems Tinder is accusing Bumble of infringing on the item that really made Tinder famous (i.e. swiping). Swiping did away with all that scrolling, reading, and learning about a potential romantic interest. Who has time for that? Even if you have time, who wants to do it? Instead, Tinder allowed you to make the important dating decision based on looks and looks alone, if you’re that shallow. It does appear there is a short biography portion some might want to read, but only if the potential match fits your physical requirements per their photo.

“Swipe right” and “swipe left” became a part of our nomenclature, often used outside of dating. I’ve heard comics and late show hosts use the terminology. There is no doubt in my mind, those using the terminology associate it with Tinder. Alas, Bumble decided to use the feature as well. Probably because users liked picking their mates via the swipe method.

There are some further accusations as set forth in this article by Recode, “[Tinder] also claims that early Bumble executives Chris Gulczynski and Sarah Mick, who both previously worked at Tinder, stole ‘confidential information related to proposed Tinder features,’ including the idea for a feature that lets users go back if they accidentally skip someone, according to the suit.” This is important, because when you’re swiping for volume (because it’s a numbers game) and get into a zone you might accidentally eliminate someone you find attractive. You need to undo that ASAP.

Finally, there is the issue of Match/Tinder trying to purchase Bumble last year. They offered $450 million, which was turned down, due to the acrimonious relationship between the two companies. Is Tinder using this case to apply some pressure on Bumble, thereby encouraging a sale? Quite possible.

If the case actually moves ahead and a sale is not negotiated, we can expect to see some expert witness participation. What kind of experts? I wish I could encourage you to swipe right to view them. However, you just have to keep reading!

Intellectual Property / Patent Infringement:

Intellectual property is sort of wide ranging term for expert witnesses. A broad range of expertise fits into the category intellectual property, such as patents, patent infringement, trademarks, trade dress, copyrights, licensing, trade secrets, and more.

In the Tinder v. Bumble issue, it appears they are only suing over a couple of patents and The Verge told us what those patents are. Both patents appear to be connected with the user interface, so I anticipate we will see intellectual property experts with software, programming,  and design engineering backgrounds. There is potential need for electronic engineering expert witnesses, but I think that will be less likely as it doesn’t appear hardware is at issue in this case.

Trademarks:

The lawsuit also claims that Bumble’s use of the word “swiping” infringes on Tinder’s registered trademarks. This legal dictionary from Cornell Law School’s Legal Information Institute describes a trademark as follows, “A trademark is any word, name, symbol, or design, or any combination thereof, used in commerce to identify and distinguish the goods of one manufacturer or seller from those of another and to indicate the source of the goods.”

The Legal Information Institute also tells us that “Two basic requirements must be met for a mark to be eligible for trademark protection: it must be in use in commerce and it must be distinctive.”

As I mentioned above, I knew that “swiping” was something associated with Tinder and I know that Tinder is a subscription based dating service. So, according to this layperson, the mark is being used in commerce and I recognize it as distinctive to Tinder. Now that I’ve made this information public, I cannot imagine Bumble wanting me on the jury. Luckily, the case has been filed in the US District Court in Waco, Texas.

Furthermore, a trademark expert witness retained by Bumble, may be able to provide information about “swiping” that indicates it is not distinctive. In fact, the terminology may be quite prevalent in software uses.

A Similar Matter?

The software matter I equate to this lawsuit would be the “Stories” issue between Snapchat and Instagram. Snapchat was the first social media platform to use the Stories feature, allowing users to post a continuing series of video clips or photos in order to create an ongoing story. Instagram copied it, nearly outright, and even admitted that they took the idea from Snapchat. To my knowledge, this has not resulted in litigation. However, the use of software-based features seem nearly identical and I wouldn’t be surprised to see a patent infringement and trademark dispute between Facebook (Instagram’s parent company) and Snapchat.

Requests:

As I am not practicing in this field, I think it would be great to get some feedback from a some lawyers who regularly deal with patents and trademarks.

I have asked Karima Gulick of Gulick Law and Joey Vitale of Indie Law to provide some real insight, rather than lay punditry, in the matter of Tinder v. Bumble.

UPDATE:

Intellectual property and patent attorney, Karima Gulick, has provided her insight about this case on her blog. Here is her blog post: Tinder v. Bumble: Patent dispute in app dating paradise.

Copyright and trademark attorney, Joey Vitale, has provided his insight about this case on his blog. Here is his blog post: Be careful if you “swipe”: trademark battles in Tinder v. Bumble.