Last week, our feeds were flooded with videos of Tesla’s next-generation Roadster. The reveal generated huge media attention, as over 9 million people watched the car drive upside down on a curved ramp, fly off the edge, roll over and land. A second trick involved the vehicle shooting up into the air and executing a flip over a row of Tesla models, returning safely to the ground on the other side.
Integrating rocket technology from Elon Musk’s other company, SpaceX, the tricks were certainly designed to turn heads. But behind the spectacle lies an interesting question for innovators: is it worthwhile protecting technology that might never reach a market-ready product?
Tesla’s patent activity suggests that the technology may have applications beyond a grand publicity stunt, demonstrating how an apparently niche invention may indeed become commercially valuable intellectual property.
Can we learn anything from Tesla’s patent filing activity?
Tesla have acknowledged that this car is not road-legal (and likely will not be in the foreseeable future). According to Musk, the car was propelled upwards using cold-gas thrusters developed by SpaceX (see our previous article on SpaceX’s IP strategy here), but these thrusters will not be available on the commercial version of the Roadster. These stunts could easily be dismissed as mere marketing gimmicks.
However, recent patent filings and grants from Tesla could suggest that these stunts are an exaggerated display of technology that might well make it into commercial designs in the future.
In particular, the recently granted US patent US 12,746,987 B1 titled ‘Electric fan car’ targets the use of a ducted fan system that draws air in from an underbody of a vehicle and emits this air through a rear outlet at the back of that vehicle, generating downforce. A system like this could have been harnessed to keep the Roadster attached to the curved ramp despite being upside down.
(To certain readers, this will immediately bring up memories of the Brabham BT46B ‘fan car’ that was introduced during the 1978 F1 season; this design similarly used a fan to draw air in from beneath the car allegedly in order to improve cooling, but with the certainly intentional side effect of increasing downforce).
The concept of emitting gas from the rear of a vehicle also links to the operation of the cold-gas thrusters, which work by the force of compressed gas escaping through a nozzle exerting an equal and opposite reaction. Therefore, whilst we are unlikely to be flying in our cars any time soon, this demonstration may be a sign that gas-aided acceleration or even rocket technology could eventually be built into consumer car models.
Is it worth protecting?
The uncertainty surrounding whether technology similar to that found in experimental F1 cars and rocketswill ever be included in road models of the Roadster begs the question: is it worth protecting?
Tesla certainly think so (judging by their patent filings).
One thing that this demonstration does shows is that it is possible, and perhaps even plausible, to include this sort of technology in this size and shape of vehicle. And the patent filings do suggest that this technology is considered to have at least some commercial relevance. For example, while most cars will not need to drive upside down on looping ramps, having a fan that can increase downforce at any speed could certainly help with grip in conditions such as wet or icy roads.
Perhaps this demonstration is one example of a wider trend: technologies that start their life in expensive and niche areas, such as F1 or space, moving towards more widely commercial use cases. Ideas may have arisen in the past but consequently re-emerge as other technologies develop. The implementation of downforce-generating fans, for example, was previously limited to expensive racing cars, but this technology, and relevant complementary technologies have now reached the point where they could feasibly be packaged into consumer vehicles. For companies thinking about patents, the fact many initially niche inventions will eventually have real commercial applications is a necessary consideration.
What are the takeaways?
It might seem slightly contradictory to say it is worth protecting niche inventions immediately, but also that niche inventions often take time (and other developments) to reach the stage of widespread commercialisation.
But this is not the case at all. The pace of technological development is both accelerating and unpredictable, and a considered IP strategy is prospective by nature, taking into account future opportunities. An invention does not need to have an obvious market in the present to later become commercially valuable, and it is important to envisage early on the possibility of new, niche technologies being widely commercialised.
This does not mean that companies should patent everything which is possible to patent. Commercial relevance is crucial. But sometimes commercial relevance can be found when you look beyond the product as a whole and towards the underlying innovations. And the most commercially useful application of an invention may not be the most headline grabbing. In the case of Tesla’s flying car, the technology could be relevant for ground vehicles achieving high-speed acceleration with enhanced stability, not just for the vertical propulsion which caught people’s attention.
Protecting these inventions even before such applications become clear is often advisable. Filing early reduces the risk of technology being disclosed to the public and precluding the chance of obtaining patent protection. While it has evidently taken a while for the fan technology to edge its way towards the mass market, it is certainly better to be protected and to be ready for step changes in technology that can quickly move these sorts of inventions into the commercial sphere. Indeed, thrusters that have only recently been developed for use on rockets are already being integrated into cars (albeit not yet road-legal models).
Whether Tesla’s flying Roadster ever makes it onto public roads remains to be seen, but the patents behind it may have a commercial future even if the flying car itself does not. For innovators, the lesson is not that every ambitious idea deserves a patent. It is that the most valuable application of an invention may not be the one originally imagined.
After all, today’s publicity stunt could contain the technology behind tomorrow’s everyday product.
