← Back to all articles

Tesla Sues Ex-Engineer Over Robotics Secrets

Posted about 2 months ago by Anonymous

Electric Vehicle Giant Accuses Former Employee of Trade Secret Theft

Tesla has filed a lawsuit against Zhongjie “Jay” Li, a former engineer on its Optimus humanoid robotics project, alleging he stole proprietary technology to launch a competitor. The complaint, filed Wednesday, claims Li illicitly transferred sensitive data about Tesla’s advanced robotic hand sensors to personal devices before founding startup Proception.

Details of the Alleged Intellectual Property Theft

According to court documents:

  • Li worked at Tesla from August 2022 to September 2024 on the Optimus project
  • He allegedly downloaded confidential robotics research onto two personal smartphones
  • Company records show searches about “humanoid robotic hands” and startup funding in his final months

Rapid Startup Launch Raises Red Flags

The timeline has raised eyebrows at Tesla:

“Less than a week after leaving Tesla, Proception was incorporated,” states the complaint. “Within five months, they claimed to have developed robotic hands strikingly similar to Tesla’s designs.”

Proception, backed by Y Combinator, describes its mission as creating “the world’s most advanced humanoid hands” to transform human-robot interaction.

The Long Road for Tesla’s Optimus Project

Tesla’s humanoid robotics program has faced challenges since its 2021 unveiling:

  • Originally promised for 2023 release alongside other products
  • Currently projected for commercial sales starting in 2026
  • Recent “We, Robot” event revealed bots were partially human-controlled

Broader Implications for Robotics Industry

The case highlights growing concerns about intellectual property protection in the competitive field of humanoid robotics. As companies like Tesla, Boston Dynamics, and startups race to commercialize these technologies, trade secret disputes may become more common.

Both Tesla and Proception declined to comment when contacted by TechCrunch. The outcome of this case could set important precedents for tech employee mobility and IP protection in the robotics sector.