The case, centered on claims of unauthorized use of vehicle performance prediction technology, also names the Indiana Economic Development Corporation (IEDC) and more than a dozen other defendants.
–by Mark Cipolloni–
The lawsuit was filed on March 5, 2026, in Marion Superior Court (Marion County, Indiana). It asserts claims including breach of contract, defamation, and intellectual property theft. Barbara Bessolo, founder and CEO of the Carmel-based software company DynamoEdge (which develops real-time edge AI for telemetry, vehicle performance prediction, and related applications in motorsports and commercial fleets), alleges that her technology and related intellectual property were shared in the context of potential partnerships and then used without permission in subsequent ventures.
Allegations Involving Andretti
According to the complaint, discussions between Bessolo and Michael Andretti began around October 2020 about forming a company together. Bessolo claims the relationship advanced far enough that she rebranded DynamoEdge as AndrettiEdge (or AndrettEdge in some references) and included Andretti in meetings and pitches with potential investors, including AT&T. She alleges that representations of Andretti’s full cooperation and participation supported investor interest and funding commitments.
Bessolo further claims that by 2024, Andretti had launched an AI company (described in the complaint as a “$1 billion AI company,” though not specifically named) that incorporated DynamoEdge’s vehicle performance prediction technology and the marketing slogan “Predicting the Unpredictable,” which DynamoEdge had used since around 2021. At the relevant time, Bessolo was pursuing a patent for the technology (U.S. Patent No. 12,518,219, related to real-time processing of vehicle sensor data; the application was filed in May 2022 and the patent granted in early 2026). She also alleges that Andretti induced some of her business partners to breach agreements with DynamoEdge, after which the intellectual property was incorporated into other projects, including work involving contractor 9-12.
Andretti entities named as defendants include Andretti Autosport Holding Company, LLC; Andretti Global, LLC (the rebranded successor following TWG Global’s acquisition); and related parties.
Broader Claims Involving IEDC, Contractors, and Others
The suit extends well beyond Andretti. A central element involves a subcontract DynamoEdge held with 9-12 LLC (also referenced as NineTwelve) related to a mobile 5G technology proof-of-concept for the Indy Autonomous Challenge (IAC), an autonomous racing initiative. The subcontract was terminated in September 2021. Bessolo disputes the stated reason (failure to deliver required technical plans) and alleges that 9-12 subsequently pursued a transportation project involving AT&T and Purdue University that incorporated DynamoEdge intellectual property.
Paul Mitchell, founder of the Indy Autonomous Challenge, is among the defendants. He previously told the Indianapolis Star that he only learned of Bessolo’s agreement after it had been signed and that the IAC already had an exclusive arrangement with another company for the same technology.
David Roberts, former chief innovation officer at the IEDC, is accused of failing to adequately protect Bessolo’s intellectual property and of making false statements about DynamoEdge’s technology and prospects to third parties, allegedly harming her business. Other defendants include Palantir Technologies (accused of duplicating elements of the IP), Applied Research Institute / Indiana Innovation Institute, and additional individuals and entities. Collectively, Bessolo alleges that public funds administered by the IEDC supported projects or entities that commercially benefited from her technology without proper authorization or compensation. She seeks exemplary and punitive damages, an injunction against further use of the IP, trademarks, and technology, and an accounting of relevant IEDC contracts and grants dating back to 2016.
Responses and Context
These remain unproven allegations. The court will determine the facts. Roberts’ attorney, Paul Jefferson, told the Indianapolis Star: “The lawsuit is based on a fundamental lack of knowledge of the facts. We are confident in our position, and look forward to educating the Plaintiff. Mr. Roberts performed his duties in alignment with his legal and ethical obligations, and the Plaintiff’s claims are wholly misplaced.” Mitchell could not immediately be reached for comment after the filing; other defendants who spoke previously about related matters denied wrongdoing.
The case arrives amid broader scrutiny of the IEDC. A forensic review commissioned by Indiana Governor Mike Braun identified inadequate management and potential conflicts of interest, raising concerns about favoritism and misuse of public funds. Prior reporting by the Indianapolis Star highlighted concentrations of IEDC funding among interconnected individuals and organizations, including some named in the suit, and accounts from other small business owners who felt disadvantaged relative to state-supported entities tied to initiatives like the Indy Autonomous Challenge.
Formula 1-focused site The Judge 13 reported on the matter on August 8, 2026, emphasizing Andretti’s inclusion among the defendants and noting contact with Bessolo for further developments expected in coming days. In a public post around the same time, Bessolo reiterated her account of Andretti introducing her to the IEDC for funding support, only for subsequent interactions with the agency and 9-12 to result (in her view) in the loss of her intellectual property, plans, customers, and roadmap.
DynamoEdge has continued independent activity, including collaborations and presentations on its real-time edge AI platform (sometimes branded around predictive capabilities for motorsports and intelligent transportation). The patent at the center of parts of the dispute is now granted.
As of the latest available reporting in early August 2026, the litigation remains active and unresolved. No final judicial findings have been made on the merits of the claims. Further court filings, responses, or developments may clarify or contest the detailed allegations in the coming weeks and months.
Leave a comment