Auto Parts Design

PatentLawPic356Ford Global Technologies v. ITC (Fed. Cir. 2008) (The F-150 ITC Case) (CURRENTLY ON APPEAL)

In 2007, the International Trade Commission (ITC) issued a final decision finding three Ford design patents invalid based on a prior public use. The patents relate to various parts of its F-150 truck design. Ford had asked the ITC to stop generic parts manufacturers from imports of the patented designs that were flowing in from Taiwan. In its decision, the ITC found seven of the design patents valid and infringed, but found that three of them were invalid.

Prior Public Use: The alleged prior public use in this case was an event where Ford selected 900 members of the public to attend in small groups and provide feedback on proposed car designs. At the event, security was “high,” cameras were banned as were sketches. Thus, according to Ford, the attendees could not have truly disclosed the ornamental features of the patented design. The invitees were also paid – and thus, disclosure to those individuals should be presumptively be considered private (as would normal in house discussions with an employee). Ford also argues that the payment to attendees is clear evidence that this public use was not “commercial exploitation.”

PatentLawPic359Almost no Scope: Many design patent holders run from the Federal Circuit’s 1988 in re Mann decision announcing that “design patents have almost no scope. In the auto-parts industry, however, no scope is needed so long as the patented designs are identical to the marketed products. The generic part importers are “slavishly copying” Ford’s original design — thus infringement should be open-and-shut. (See discussion below).

Ford embraced the narrow scope of its design rights – arguing that there its controls over the feedback event of preventing cameras or drawings ensures that none of the attendees will be able to place the invention in the public domain. Notably, in a recorded post-show follow-up, attendees who were asked about the design could only describe it in general terms such as “beefy.”

“The video evidence shows that the claimed ornamental features of the patents-in-suit were not in the public’s possession. Without cameras or sketches – which were specifically prohibited – there was no way here that the claimed designs could have been disclosed to the public. Ford therefore did not “remov [e] inventions from the public domain which the public justifiably comes to believe are freely available.” … In short, “beefy front end” and “a chopped top” do not describe or disclose the design inventions.

PatentLawPic360Is Point of Novelty Analysis Required?: In its counter-appeal, the Taiwanese manufacturers argue that infringement was improperly found because the ITC failed to perform the point-of-novelty test which, according to the defendants, is required even when the patented design is identically copied.

“[E]ven though the court compares two items through the eyes of the ordinary observer, it must nevertheless, to find infringement, attribute their similarity to the novelty which distinguishes the patented device from the prior art.”‘ Lawman, 437 F.3d at 1386 (quoting Litton, 728 F.2d at 1444).

The defendants are correct that Lawman and Litton appear to require the point-of-novelty test in every case of infringement. That issue will likely be resolved in the upcoming en banc decision in Egyptian Goddess. In addition, the defendants argued that the design patents should be considered obvious under KSR v. Teleflex (2007). As in that case the claims appear to be composed of a set of elements all found in the prior art.

An amicus brief was filed supporting the generic manufacturers. However, I have not yet seen that brief. In addition, the ITC recently began investigating another design patent complaint filed by Ford against the same generic manufacturers. This new case involves repair parts for the 2005 Mustang redesign.

Note:

  • A reader reminded to me to mention pending H.R. 5638 and the PTO’s town hall meeting next Monday to discuss design patent issues. (written comments due July 15). 
  • Unlike the patent reform bill, H.R.5638 is a partisan Democrat sponsored bill that would primarily support the insurance industry and make automobile repair less expensive by excusing repair parts from patent infringement. The bill would amend 35 USC 271 by adding the following subsection:
    • (j) It shall not be an act of infringement to make, use, offer to sell, or sell within the United States or import into the United States any article of manufacture that itself constitutes a component part of another article of manufacture, if the sole purpose of the component part is for the repair of the article of manufacture of which it is a part so as to restore its original appearance.

27 thoughts on “Auto Parts Design

  1. Thats really great and its difficult to design the Auto parts. That too it should be designed according to the public. Many designers got the idea of doing the auto parts according to the climate, geography and roadways of their nation.
    This post gives us a great information and thanks for the post.

  2. many patented articles (e.g. fuel injectors) are _components_ of larger assemblies (e.g. engines), and the aftermarket for repair is way larger (in per-unit pricing, anyway) than the market for initial assembly. So the proposed bill would really crush the patent incentive for a lot of inventions “protectible” by utility patents.
    I recently came across your blog and have been reading along. I thought I would leave my first comment. I don’t know what to say except that I have enjoyed reading. Nice blog. I will keep visiting this blog very often.

  3. and the aftermarket for repair is way larger (in per-unit pricing, anyway) than the market for initial assembly. So the proposed bill would really crush the patent incentive for a lot of inventions “protectible” by utility patents.
    I recently came across your blog and have been reading along. I thought I would leave my first comment. I don’t know what to say except that I have enjoyed reading. Nice blog. I will keep visiting this blog very often.

  4. and the aftermarket for repair is way larger (in per-unit pricing, anyway) than the market for initial assembly. So the proposed bill would really crush the patent incentive for a lot of inventions “protectible” by utility patents.
    I recently came across your blog and have been reading along. I thought I would leave my first comment. I don’t know what to say except that I have enjoyed reading. Nice blog. I will keep visiting this blog very often.

  5. many patented articles (e.g. fuel injectors) are _components_ of larger assemblies (e.g. engines), and the aftermarket for repair is way larger (in per-unit pricing, anyway) than the market for initial assembly. So the proposed bill would really crush the patent incentive for a lot of inventions “protectible” by utility patents.
    I recently came across your blog and have been reading along. I thought I would leave my first comment. I don’t know what to say except that I have enjoyed reading. Nice blog. I will keep visiting this blog very often.

  6. Nice post its great..!!!indeed…!!!!
    Wouldn’t the House bill, in its attempt to codify the “repair parts” doctrine of Aro, establish a “repair parts presumption” that patentees would have to overcome? Moreover, many patented articles (e.g. fuel injectors) are _components_ of larger assemblies (e.g. engines), and the aftermarket for repair is way larger (in per-unit pricing, anyway) than the market for initial assembly. So the proposed bill would really crush the patent incentive for a lot of inventions “protectible” by utility patents.
    I recently came across your blog and have been reading along. I thought I would leave my first comment. I don’t know what to say except that I have enjoyed reading. Nice blog. I will keep visiting this blog very often.

  7. Nice post its great..!!!indeed…!!!!
    Wouldn’t the House bill, in its attempt to codify the “repair parts” doctrine of Aro, establish a “repair parts presumption” that patentees would have to overcome? Moreover, many patented articles (e.g. fuel injectors) are _components_ of larger assemblies (e.g. engines), and the aftermarket for repair is way larger (in per-unit pricing, anyway) than the market for initial assembly. So the proposed bill would really crush the patent incentive for a lot of inventions “protectible” by utility patents.
    I recently came across your blog and have been reading along. I thought I would leave my first comment. I don’t know what to say except that I have enjoyed reading. Nice blog. I will keep visiting this blog very often.

  8. Wouldn’t the House bill, in its attempt to codify the “repair parts” doctrine of Aro, establish a “repair parts presumption” that patentees would have to overcome? Moreover, many patented articles (e.g. fuel injectors) are _components_ of larger assemblies (e.g. engines), and the aftermarket for repair is way larger (in per-unit pricing, anyway) than the market for initial assembly. So the proposed bill would really crush the patent incentive for a lot of inventions “protectible” by utility patents.

  9. Wouldn’t the House bill, in its attempt to codify the “repair parts” doctrine of Aro, establish a “repair parts presumption” that patentees would have to overcome? Moreover, many patented articles (e.g. fuel injectors) are _components_ of larger assemblies (e.g. engines), and the aftermarket for repair is way larger (in per-unit pricing, anyway) than the market for initial assembly. So the proposed bill would really crush the patent incentive for a lot of inventions “protectible” by utility patents.

  10. Your article is nice..indeed…!!!
    I think the word “argument” should be replaced with the phrase “fundamental and irrefutable point”
    Elimination of the “point of novelty” test would be helpful. Application of KSR to design patents could be harmful, though.

  11. I wonder if H.R.5638 would protect a replacement part that is used for a purpose other than accident repair, e.g., a component formed from carbon-fiber that is identical in appearance to the OEM component. One could argue that the “repair” is the reduction of weight.

  12. Thanks Dennis, for running this thread. The topic is of burning topical interest in the EU, where the struggle between the OEM’s and the auto parts after market suppliers is just as keen, and where the rival lobbies are vigorous, and where the civil servants have only a woolly knowledge of IPR, and where the politicians have divided loyalties, and where very few (notable exception is J&J, as a result of its English litigation with Airwick) know how to settle the scope of a EU Design Patent, or how to decide on patentability over the prior art. We look to the US courts (not for the first time) to write a decision that will help us in Europe to a sensible outcome, because in a globalised world an optimal solution in one country is probably also optimal in any other.

  13. “Dennis, is there a typographical error in this sentence:”

    I think the word “argument” should be replaced with the phrase “fundamental and irrefutable point”

  14. Elimination of the “point of novelty” test would be helpful. Application of KSR to design patents could be harmful, though.

  15. Dennis, is there a typographical error in this sentence:

    “The brief makes the argument that design patents that are “primarily functional” should not be protected by design patents.”?

Comments are closed.