Neural AI, LLC v. Tesla Inc. — Entry #6: CORRECTED MOTION to Compel Compliance With Subpoena Served on Third Party Tesla, Inc
Case: Neural AI, LLC v. Tesla Inc. txwd · 7:26-cv-00318
filed August 17, 2026
What this document is
Docket entry #6 · filed August 18, 2026
CORRECTED MOTION to Compel Compliance With Subpoena Served on Third Party Tesla, Inc. by Neural AI, LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit Declaration of Tanner Laiche, # 2 Exhibit 1, # 3 Exhibit 2, # 4 Exhibit 3, # 5 Exhibit 4, # 6 Exhibit 5, # 7 Exhibit 6, # 8 Exhibit 7, # 9 Exhibit 8, # 10 Exhibit 9, # 11 Exhibit 10, # 12 Exhibit 11, # 13 Exhibit 12, # 14 Exhibit 13, # 15 Exhibit 14, # 16 Exhibit 15, # 17 Exhibit 16, # 18 Exhibit 17, # 19 Exhibit 18, # 20 Exhibit 19, # 21 Exhibit 20, # 22 Exhibit 21, # 23 Proposed Order)(Magni, Rocco) (Entered: 08/18/2026)
Who is involved
- Neural AI, LLC
- Tesla Inc.
Why we have it
We follow this case because it names a company we track, although that company is not a party:
- CoreWeave: its name “CoreWeave” appears in a filing in this case.
…following third- parties in this district: xAI, Meta, CoreWeave, Google, and Oracle. See, e.g., Case Nos. 7:26-mc-…
A free copy from the RECAP archive of federal court filings (mirrored at the Internet Archive), retrieved September 29, 2026. Federal court filings are public records.
Document text
5 page(s), 9,767 characters, converted from the PDF's text layer · plain text.
Full text
Case 7:26-mc-00318-LS Document 6-1 Filed 08/18/26 Page 1 of 5
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
MIDLAND/ODESSA DIVISION
NEURAL AI, LLC,
Misc. Case No. 7:26-mc-00318-DC
Petitioner,
Principal case pending in Western District of
v. Texas, Civil Action No. 7:24-cv-00221-LS-
DTG
TESLA, INC.,
Respondent.
DECLARATION OF TANNER LAICHE IN SUPPORT OF NEURAL AI’S
MOTION TO COMPEL COMPLIANCE WITH SUBPOENA
SERVED ON THIRD-PARTY TESLA, INC.
I, Tanner Laiche, declare as follows:
1. I am an attorney duly licensed to practice in the States of California and Washington
and am admitted to the Western District of Texas. I am an associate at the law firm of Susman
Godfrey LLP, and am a counsel of record for Petitioner Neural AI, LLC (“NAI”) in the above-
captioned matter. I make this declaration in support of NAI’s Motion to Compel Compliance with
Subpoena Served on Third-Party Tesla, Inc. (“Tesla”). Unless otherwise stated, I have personal
knowledge of the facts set forth herein and could competently testify thereto.
2. Attached hereto as Exhibit 1 is a true and correct copy of NAI’s First Amended
Complaint for Patent Infringement filed in the Underlying Action on December 12, 2024.
3. Attached hereto as Exhibit 2 is a true and correct copy of U.S. Patent No.
8,648,867, entitled “Graphic Processor Based Accelerator System and Method.”
4. Attached hereto as Exhibit 3 is a true and correct copy of Reissue Patent No.
RE48,438, entitled “Graphic Processor Based Accelerator System and Method.”
1
Case 7:26-mc-00318-LS Document 6-1 Filed 08/18/26 Page 2 of 5
5. Attached hereto as Exhibit 4 is a true and correct copy of Reissue Patent No.
RE49,461, entitled “Graphic Processor Based Accelerator System and Method.”
6. Attached hereto as Exhibit 5 is a true and correct copy of NAI’s Subpoenas to
Produce Documents and to Testify at a Deposition served on Tesla, Inc., served on June 25, 2026,
including the accompanying definitions, instructions, requests for production, and deposition
topics.
7. Attached hereto as Exhibit 6 is a true and correct copy of the Affidavit of Service
confirming service of the subpoenas on Tesla’s registered agent on June 25, 2026.
8. Attached hereto as Exhibit 7 is a true and correct copy of NAI’s January 20, 2026
Final Infringement Contentions Cover Page filed in the Underlying Action.
9. Attached hereto as Exhibit 8 is a true and correct copy of NVIDIA’s Amended
Answer to NAI’s Amended Complaint, filed on November 25, 2025, as docketed at Dkt. 130 in
the Underlying Action (public, redacted version).
10. Attached hereto as Exhibit 9 is a true and correct copy of Non-Party Tesla, Inc.’s
Objections and Responses to Plaintiff Neural AI, LLC’s Subpoena, dated July 21, 2026.
11. Attached hereto as Exhibit 10 is a true and correct copy of the meet-and-confer and
extension correspondence between counsel for NAI and counsel for Tesla regarding NAI’s
subpoenas.
12. Attached hereto as Exhibit 11 is a true and correct copy of NAI’s Third-Party
Questions provided to Tesla on August 4, 2026.
13. Attached hereto as Exhibit 12 is a true and correct copy of NAI’s Draft Third-Party
Declaration provided to Tesla on August 4, 2026.
14. Attached hereto as Exhibit 13 is a true and correct copy of an NVIDIA Blog post
2
Case 7:26-mc-00318-LS Document 6-1 Filed 08/18/26 Page 3 of 5
titled “Tesla Unveils Supercomputer Powered by NVIDIA GPUs,” printed from
https://blogs.nvidia.com. I obtained this document from NVIDIA’s publicly accessible website on
August 17, 2026.
15. Attached hereto as Exhibit 14 is a true and correct copy of a Tom’s Hardware
article titled “Tesla Brags About In-House Supercomputer, Now With 7,360 A100 GPUs,” printed
from https://www.tomshardware.com. I obtained this document from Tom’s Hardware’s publicly
accessible website on August 17, 2026.
16. Attached hereto as Exhibit 15 is a true and correct copy of a TechCrunch article
titled “Tesla Dojo: The rise and fall of Elon Musk’s AI supercomputer,” printed from
https://techcrunch.com. I obtained this document from TechCrunch’s publicly accessible website
on August 17, 2026.
17. Attached hereto as Exhibit 16 is a true and correct copy of a Popular Science article
titled “What we know about Tesla’s supercomputer,” printed from https://www.popsci.com. I
obtained this document from Popular Science’s publicly accessible website on August 17, 2026.
18. Attached hereto as Exhibit 17 is a true and correct copy of the Tesla Careers
webpage, printed from https://www.tesla.com/careers. I obtained this document from Tesla’s
publicly accessible website on August 17, 2026.
19. Attached hereto as Exhibit 18 is a true and correct copy of an article titled “Tesla
employs 20,000 in Austin, could triple amid Cybertruck ramp-up.” I obtained this document from
a publicly accessible website on August 17, 2026.
20. Attached hereto as Exhibit 19 is a true and correct copy of the Giga Texas webpage
from Tesla’s website, printed from https://www.tesla.com. I obtained this document from Tesla’s
publicly accessible website on August 17, 2026.
3
Case 7:26-mc-00318-LS Document 6-1 Filed 08/18/26 Page 4 of 5
21. Attached hereto as Exhibit 20 is a true and correct copy of the Declaration of Alon
Daks, a Senior Staff Software Engineer at Tesla, Inc., executed on August 10, 2026, regarding
Tesla’s use of NVIDIA GPUs and software identified in NAI’s subpoena.
22. Attached hereto as Exhibit 21 is a true and correct copy of additional meet-and-
confer correspondence between counsel for NAI and counsel for Tesla, dated August 10–11, 2026,
regarding Tesla’s declaration and the outstanding subpoena issues.
23. The Underlying Action—Neural AI, LLC v. NVIDIA Corporation, Case No. 7:24-
cv-00221-LS-DTG (W.D. Tex.)—is a patent infringement action in which NAI alleges that
NVIDIA, Corp.’s (“NVIDIA”) GPU-accelerated computing hardware and software infringe U.S.
Patent No. 8,648,867 (the “’867 Patent”), Reissue Patent No. RE48,438 (the “’438 Patent”), and
Reissue Patent No. RE49,461 (the “’461 Patent”) (collectively, the “Asserted Patents”).
24. Throughout discovery in the above-captioned action, NVIDIA has taken the
position that NAI must obtain evidence from NVIDIA’s customers and end users to prove how the
accused products are actually deployed and configured. During a sealed discovery conference on
September 8, 2025, NVIDIA’s counsel represented to the Court that it only provides tools for end-
user companies to build their own AI applications on NVIDIA hardware and that if NAI wanted
to learn how the accused software was deployed in real-world systems, NAI would need to seek
that information directly from NVIDIA’s customers and end users.
25. Throughout discovery NVIDIA has also disclaimed knowledge concerning how its
customers, partners, and end users ultimately deploy, configure, and operate NVIDIA hardware
and software. NAI accordingly turned to third-party discovery, including subpoenas to Tesla, to
obtain the evidence NVIDIA contends NAI must have.
26. On August 10, 2026, Tesla provided a declaration from Alon Daks, a Senior Staff
4
Case 7:26-mc-00318-LS Document 6-1 Filed 08/18/26 Page 5 of 5
Software Engineer (Exhibit 20). However, as set forth in Exhibit 21, the declaration is materially
insufficient because it addresses only GPU identification and partial software identification while
omitting entirely the substantive technical topics set forth in NAI’s draft declaration (draft
paragraphs 7–15), including unmodified use of NVIDIA software, hardware/software functioning
as designed by NVIDIA, use of NVIDIA-distributed pretrained models, CPU/GPU memory
architecture, and the standard data flow.
27. As of the date of this declaration, Tesla has not: (a) identified any specific document
requests to which it will respond; (b) agreed to produce any responsive documents; (c) fully
answered NAI’s technical questions; (d) designated a witness for deposition; or (e) committed to
any date by which it will do any of the foregoing.
28. Document discovery in the Underlying Action closed on August 11, 2026.
Defendant NVIDIA, Corp. in the underlying action stipulated to extend the deadline for third-party
motions to compel to August 18, 2026. Deposition discovery closes on September 16, 2026.
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the
foregoing is true and correct.
Executed on August 18, 2026, in Seattle, Washington.
Tanner Laiche
5