UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`__________________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`____________________
`
`LKQ Corporation and Keystone Automotive Industries, Inc.,
`
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`GM Global Technology Operations LLC,
`
`Patent Owner.
`
`_________________
`
`U.S. Design Patent No. D850,341
`
`Filed: November 7, 2017
`
`Issued: June 4, 2019
`
`Title: Vehicle Fender
`
`__________________________
`
`PETITION FOR POST GRANT REVIEW
`
`OF U.S. DESIGN PATENT NO. D850,341
`
`Post Grant Review No.: To Be Assigned
`
`
`
`Mail Stop “PATENT BOARD”
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`
`
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1
`
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.8 ................................... 5
`
`III.
`
`FEES UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.203 ................................................................. 7
`
`IV. REQUIREMENTS UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.204 ............................................ 7
`
`A. Grounds for Standing – 37 C.F.R. § 42.204(a) ..................................... 7
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`Identification of Challenged Claim for Which Post Grant Review is
`Requested and Specific Statutory Grounds on which the Challenge is
`Based – 37 C.F.R. § 42.204(b)(1) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.204(b)(2) ......... 8
`
`An Overview of the ’341 Patent and Claim Construction Thereof - 37
`C.F.R. § 42.204(b)(3) ............................................................................ 9
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`The ’341 Patent ........................................................................... 9
`
`Claim Construction of the ’341 Patent .....................................12
`
`D. How the Challenged Claim is Unpatentable – 37 C.F.R.
`§ 42.204(b)(4) ......................................................................................20
`
`E.
`
`Evidence Relied Upon to Support the Challenge and the Relevance of
`the Evidence to the Challenge Raised – 37 C.F.R. § 42.204(b)(5) .....20
`
`V. APPLICABLE LEGAL STANDARDS ........................................................ 26
`
`A. Anticipation Under 35 U.S.C. § 102 ...................................................26
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`Designs Found Anticipated Under 35 U.S.C. § 102 ...........................27
`
`Obviousness Under 35 U.S.C. § 103 ...................................................29
`
`D. Designs Found Obvious Under 35 U.S.C. § 103 ................................34
`
`E.
`
`F.
`
`Designer of Ordinary Skill ..................................................................40
`
`Ordinary Observer ...............................................................................41
`
`FOR
`GROUNDS
`THE
`OF
`EXPLANATION
`VI. DETAILED
`UNPATENTABILITY ..................................................................................43
`
`A. Ground 1: The ’341 Patent is Invalid because it is a Partial-product
`Patent, which Violates the Doctrine of Exhaustion and GM’s
`Customers’ Repair Right. ....................................................................43
`
`B.
`
`Ground 2: The ’341 Patent Claim is Unpatentable as Anticipated by
`Patent Owner’s 2015 Cadillac ATS Coupe. ........................................46
`
`i
`
`

`

`C.
`
`Ground 3: In the Alternative, the ’341 Patent Claim is Unpatentable
`as Obvious Over Patent Owner’s 2015 Cadillac ATS Coupe. ............58
`
`D. Ground 4: The ’341 Patent Claim is Unpatentable as Obvious Over
`Patent Owner’s Uncited Prior Art the 2015 Cadillac ATS Coupe in
`further view of USD722,534 to Munson .............................................64
`
`VII. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................. 72
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Cases
`
`3Form, Inc. v. Lumicor, Inc.,
`678 Fed. App’x. 1002 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ................................................................31
`
`3Form, Inc. v. Lumicor, Inc.,
`Case No. 2:12-cv-00293-CW, 2015 WL 9463092 (D. Utah Dec. 28, 2015) .......63
`
`Apple, Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co.,
` 678 F.3d 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ...........................................................................30
`
`Aro Mfg. Co. v. Convertible Top Replacement Co., 365 U.S. 336 (1961) ..............44
`
`Ashley Furniture Indus. Inc. v. Lifestyle Enter. Inc.,
`574 F. Supp. 2d 920 (W.D. Wis. 2008) ................................................................42
`
`C & D Zodiac, Inc. v. b/e Aerospace, Inc.,
` PGR2017-00019, Paper No. 37, 2018 WL 5298631 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 23, 2018) ..40
`
`Campbell’s Soup Company v. Gamon Plus, Inc.,
`939 F.3d 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2019) ............................................................................30
`
`Contessa Food Prods., Inc. v. Conagra, Inc.,
` 282 F.3d 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2002) ...........................................................................13
`
`Dobson v. Dornan,
` 118 U.S. 10 (1886) ...............................................................................................13
`
`Durling v. Spectrum Furniture Co.,
` 101 F.3d 100 (Fed. Cir. 1996) ..................................................................... passim
`
`Egyptian Goddess, Inc. v. Swisa, Inc.,
` 543 F.3d 665 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ................................................................ 13, 14, 26
`
`Ethicon Endo-Surgery, Inc. v. Covidien, Inc.,
` 796 F.3d 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2015) .................................................................... 14, 26
`
`Field v. Google, Inc.,
`412 F. Supp. 2d 1106 (D. Nev. 2006) ...................................................................21
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v. Hercules Tire & Rubber Co., Inc.,
` 162 F.3d 1113 (Fed. Cir. 1998) ...........................................................................41
`
`Gorham Co. v. White,
`81 U.S. (14 Wall.) 511 (1871) ..............................................................................43
`
`Gorham Co. v. White,
` 81 U.S. 511 (1871) .................................................................................. 26, 27, 28
`
`Graham v. John Deere Co.,
`383 U.S. 1 (1966)) ................................................................................................29
`
`High Point Design LLC v. Buyers Direct, Inc.,
` 730 F.3d 1301 (Fed.Cir.2013) .......................................................... 14, 32, 64, 71
`
`Hulu, LLC v. Sound View Innovations, LLC,
`IPR2018-01039, Paper 29 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 20, 2019) ...........................................22
`
`Impression Prod., Inc. v. Lexmark Int’l, Inc., 137 S. Ct. 1523 (2017) ....................45
`
`In re Borden,
` 90 F.3d 1570 (Fed. Cir. 1996) ................................................................ 29, 31, 67
`
`In re Carter,
` 673 F.2d 1378 (C.C.P.A. 1982) .................................................................... 32, 63
`
`In re Chung,
` No. 00–1148, 2000 WL 1476861 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 4, 2000) ........................... 33, 63
`
`In re Lamb,
` 286 F.2d 610 (C.C.P.A. 1961) ...................................................................... 32, 63
`
`In re Nalbandian,
` 661 F.2d 1214 (C.C.P.A. 1981) ........................................................ 30, 32, 34, 63
`
`In re Rosen,
` 673 F.2d 388 (C.C.P.A. 1982) ...................................................................... 30, 58
`
`Int’l Seaway Trading Corp. v. Walgreens Corp.,
` 589 F.3d 1233 (Fed. Cir. 2009) ................................................................... passim
`
`iv
`
`

`

`Jazz Photo Corp. v. ITC,
`264 F.3d 1094 (Fed. Cir. 2001) ............................................................................44
`
`Jore Corp. v. Kouvato, Inc.,
`117 Fed. App’x 761 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ...................................................................30
`
`KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex,
` 550 U.S. 398 (2007) .............................................................................................33
`
`Marten Transport, Ltd. v. Platform Advertising, Inc.,
`No. 14-2464-JWL, 2016 WL 1718862 (D. Kan. Apr. 29, 2016) .........................23
`
`MRC Innovations, Inc. v. Hunter Mfg., LLP,
` 747 F.3d 1326 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ................................................................... passim
`
`Pac. Coast Marine Windshields Ltd. v. Malibu Boats, LLC,
`Case No. 6:12-CV-33-ORL-28DAB, 2013 WL 12156465 (M.D. Fla. Jan. 4,
`2013) .....................................................................................................................42
`
`Perfect Web Techs., Inc. v. InfoUSA, Inc.,
`587 F.3d 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2009) ............................................................................63
`
`Peters v. Active Mfg. Co.,
` 129 U.S. 530 (1889) .............................................................................................26
`
`Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
` 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ...........................................................................13
`
`Schwinn Bicycle Co. v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber, Co.,
`444 F.2d 295 (9th Cir. 1970) ................................................................................34
`
`Sensio, Inc. v. Select Brands, Inc.,
` No. IPR2013-00500, Paper No. 8, 2014 WL 2507791 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 11, 2014)
` ...............................................................................................................................27
`
`Smith v. Whitman Saddle Co.,
`148 U.S. 674 (1893) ..............................................................................................44
`
`Sport Dimension, Inc. v. Coleman Co., Inc.,
` 820 F.3d 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ...........................................................................14
`
`v
`
`

`

`Star Envirotech, Inc. v. Redline Detection, LLC,
`No. SACV 12-01861 JGB (DFMx), 2015 WL 4744394,
`(C.D. Cal. Jan. 29, 2015) ......................................................................................66
`
`Titan Tire Corp. v. Case New Holland, Inc.,
` 566 F.3d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2009) ...........................................................................33
`
`Voter Verified, Inc. v. Premier Election Sols., Inc.,
` 698 F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ...........................................................................23
`
`Statutes
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102 (2018) ........................................................................................8, 26
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103 (2018) ........................................................................................8, 29
`
`35 U.S.C. §102(a) ....................................................................................................26
`
`Leahy-Smith America Invents Act,
` Pub. L. 112-29, 125 Stat. 284 (2011) .................................................................... 1
`
`Rules
`
`Fed. R. Evid. 807 .....................................................................................................23
`
`Regulations
`
`37 C.F.R. § 1.152 .....................................................................................................13
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) ..............................................................................................13
`
`
`
`
`
`vi
`
`

`

`TABLE OF EXHIBITS
`
`Description
`
`U.S. Design Patent No. D850,341 (“the ’341 Patent”).
`
`Exhibit
`No.
`1001
`
`1002
`
`File History for U.S. Patent No. D850,341.
`
`1003
`
`Declaration of James M. Gandy, dated February 7, 2020.
`
`1004
`
`Declaration of Jason C. Hill, dated February 6, 2020.
`
`1005
`
`1006
`
`1007
`
`1008
`
`1009
`
`1010
`
`2020 Cadillac CT4 is a Lot Cheaper Than the ATS, Car and Driver,
`https://www.caranddriver.com/news/a29425357/2020-cadillac-ct4-
`pricing/.
`
`2020 Cadillac CT4 Wants to be the New Standard of Entry-Level
`Luxury, CNET, https://www.cnet.com/roadshow/pictures/2020-
`cadillac-ct4-reveal-specs-price/2/.
`
`
`2020 Cadillac CT4: Review Pricing and Specs, Car and Driver,
`https://www.caranddriver.com/cadillac/ct4.
`
`Jake Lingeman, World Class and Gorgeous: 2015 Cadillac ATS
`Coupe 2.0T RWD Review Notes, May 15, 2015,
`http://autoweek.com/article/car-reviews/2015-cadillac-ats-coupe-20t-
`rwd, archived on May 17, 2015 by Internet Archive organization’s
`“Wayback Machine” at
`https://web.archive.org/web/20150517232709/http://autoweek.com/ar
`ticle/car-reviews/2015-cadillac-ats-coupe-20t-rwd.
`
`U.S. Design Patent No. D722,534 (“Munson”)
`
`Robots.txt file of Autoweek.com,
`http://www.autoweek.com/robots.txt, archived on May 17, 2015 by
`Internet Archive organization’s “Wayback Machine” at
`https://web.archive.org/web/20150517074019/www.autoweek.com/ro
`bots.txt.
`
`vii
`
`

`

`Exhibit
`No.
`
`1011
`
`Description
`
`
`Declaration of Margaret A. Herrmann, dated February 6, 2020.
`
`1012
`
`Curriculum Vitae of James M. Gandy.
`
`1013
`
`Curriculum Vitae of Jason C. Hill.
`
`viii
`
`

`

`PETITION FOR POST GRANT REVIEW
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`LKQ Corporation and Keystone Automotive Industries, Inc. (together “LKQ”
`
`or “Petitioner”) respectfully request post grant review of the claim of U.S. Design
`
`Patent No. D850,341 (“the ’341 Patent”) assigned to and owned by GM Global
`
`Technology Operations LLC (“GM”). The ’341 Patent, attached hereto as Exhibit
`
`1001, was filed on November 7, 2017 and issued on June 4, 2019. Because the filing
`
`date of the ’341 Patent is after March 16, 2013, the “first inventor to file” rules
`
`govern this proceeding and conditions for patentability. See Leahy-Smith America
`
`Invents Act, Pub. L. 112-29, 125 Stat. 284 (2011). This Petition demonstrates that
`
`the sole claim of the ’341 Patent, which is embodied by General Motors’ 2020
`
`Cadillac CT4 (“2020 CT4”), is unpatentable—based on prior art that renders
`
`anticipated or obvious the single claim of the ’341 Patent—and exceeds the “more
`
`likely than not” and “preponderance of the evidence” standards required of the
`
`Petitioner for it to obtain institution of this Petition and prevail in this proceeding.
`
`The ’341 Patent claims “[t]he ornamental design for a vehicle fender, as
`
`shown and described.” Ex. 1001, at 1. The ’341 Patent covers a single claim and
`
`four figures. Id. Figure 1 of the ’341 Patent is representative of the design:
`
`1
`
`

`

`Id., FIG. 1.
`
`
`
`The solid lines of the ’341 Patent claim a vehicle fender which includes a
`
`protrusion extending upwardly and rearwardly from an upper rear portion of the
`
`fender; a first crease substantially parallel and proximal to a top edge of the fender;
`
`a beak-like front portion; an arcuate wheel arch defining an obtuse angle with the
`
`beak-like front portion; and a rear lower portion comprising a second crease that
`
`curves downwardly, and a bottom crease feature. Ex. 1003, Declaration of James
`
`M. Gandy (“Gandy Dec.”) at ¶ 35; Ex. 1004, Declaration of Jason C. Hill (“Hill
`
`Dec.”) at ¶ 33. These features are identified in the below annotated version of
`
`Figure 3:
`
`2
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`Ex. 1003, Gandy Dec. at ¶ 36; Ex. 1004, Hill Dec. at ¶ 34.
`
`However, neither the design of the ’341 Patent nor its design elements are
`
`patentably distinct from the prior art. The claimed design of the ’341 Patent is
`
`unpatentable as anticipated by the 2015 Cadillac ATS Coupe (“2015 ATS Coupe”)
`
`or, alternatively, as obvious to a designer of ordinary skill in the art (“DOSA”) in
`
`view of the combination of the 2015 ATS Coupe alone or in combination with
`
`Munson. At a glance, the extent of similarity between the ’341 Patent and the prior
`
`art is evident in the below comparison with the fender of the 2015 ATS Coupe as
`
`depicted in the Autoweek publication:
`
`3
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`Compare Ex. 1008, at 2 (top) (cropped) and Ex. 1001, FIG. 3 (bottom).
`
`4
`
`

`

`For the reasons set forth, and as shown by a simple comparison of the ’341
`
`Patent and pertinent prior art addressed more fully herein, the ’341 Patent is
`
`unpatentable as anticipated and obvious.
`
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.8
`
`In accordance with the requirements of 37 C.F.R. § 42.8, LKQ states as
`
`follows:
`
`Real Parties-In-Interest. LKQ Corporation and Keystone Automotive
`
`Industries, Inc., are real parties-in-interest. LKQ Corporation is a corporation
`
`organized and existing under the laws of the State of Delaware with its corporate
`
`office located at 500 W. Madison Street, Suite 2800, Chicago, Illinois 60661.
`
`Keystone Automotive Industries, Inc., is a corporation organized and existing under
`
`the laws of the State of California with its corporate office located at 500 W.
`
`Madison Street, Suite 2800, Chicago, Illinois 60661. Keystone Automotive
`
`Industries, Inc. is a wholly owned subsidiary of LKQ Corporation.
`
`Related Proceedings. In addition to this Petition, LKQ has filed or is filing
`
`petitions for Inter Partes Review or Post Grant Review for the following United
`
`States Design Patents also assigned to and owned by GM:
`
`Patent Number
`
`Case Number
`
`Filing Date
`
`D797,624
`
`D797,625
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`Patent Number
`
`Case Number
`
`Filing Date
`
`D811,964
`
`IPR2020-00062
`
`October 17, 2019 (accorded)
`
`D813,120
`
`IPR2020-00065
`
`October 17, 2019 (accorded)
`
`D813,755
`
`
`
`
`
`D823,741
`
`IPR2020-00064
`
`October 17, 2019 (accorded)
`
`D828,255
`
`IPR2020-00063
`
`October 17, 2019 (accorded)
`
`D840,306
`
`PGR2020-00004
`
`October 17, 2019 (accorded)
`
`D841,532
`
`PGR2020-00005
`
`October 17, 2019 (accorded)
`
`D847,043
`
`PGR2020-00002
`
`October 17, 2019 (accorded)
`
`D847,703
`
`PGR2020-00003
`
`October 17, 2019 (accorded)
`
`D852,099
`
`D853,903
`
`D859,246
`
`D859,253
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Designation of Petitioner’s Counsel. Petitioner submits a Power of Attorney
`
`with this Petition. 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(b). Petitioner identifies the following lead and
`
`backup counsel to represent it in this matter:
`
`6
`
`

`

`Lead Counsel
`
`Backup Counsel
`
`Barry F. Irwin, P.C.
`Irwin IP LLC
`222 S. Riverside Plaza
`Suite 2350
`Chicago, IL 60606
`Phone: 312.667.6081
`birwin@irwinip.com
`Reg. No. (Reg. No. 36,557)
`
`Reid Huefner
`Irwin IP LLC
`222 S. Riverside Plaza
`Suite 2350
`Chicago, IL 60606
`Phone: 312.667.6083
`rhuefner@irwinip.com
`Reg. No. (Reg. No. 57,341)
`
`Service Information. Petitioner consents to electronic service in this
`
`proceeding via (1) filing documents in the Patent Review Processing System
`
`(“PRPS”) or (2) emailing the documents to the above-designated counsel (when not
`
`filed in PRPS).
`
`Proof of Service. Proof of service of this Petition on the patent owner at the
`
`correspondence address of record for the ’341 Patent is attached.
`
`III.
`
`FEES UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.203
`
`The fee set forth in 37 C.F.R. § 42.15 is included with this Petition. The
`
`Director is authorized to charge any additional required fees to Deposit Account
`
`No. 603123.
`
`IV.
`
`REQUIREMENTS UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.204
`
`A. Grounds for Standing – 37 C.F.R. § 42.204(a)
`
`Petitioner certifies that the ’341 Patent is available for post grant review and
`
`the Petitioner is not barred or estopped from requesting post grant review
`
`7
`
`

`

`challenging the patent claim on the grounds identified in this Petition. The ’341
`
`Patent is proper for post grant review as nine months have not yet elapsed since the
`
`patent issued.
`
`B.
`
`Identification of Challenged Claim for Which Post Grant Review
`is Requested and Specific Statutory Grounds on which the
`Challenge is Based – 37 C.F.R. § 42.204(b)(1) and 37 C.F.R.
`§ 42.204(b)(2)
`
`Petitioner requests that the single claim of the ’341 Patent be found
`
`unpatentable on the basis that its claim is anticipated or obvious in light of prior art.
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102 (2018) (“A person shall be entitled to a patent unless . . . (1) the
`
`claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use,
`
`on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the
`
`claimed invention; or (2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued
`
`under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published
`
`under section 122(b).”); 35 U.S.C. § 103 (2018) (“A patent for a claimed invention
`
`may not be obtained . . . if the differences between the claimed invention and the
`
`prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious
`
`before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary
`
`skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains.”).
`
`8
`
`

`

`C. An Overview of the ’341 Patent and Claim Construction Thereof -
`37 C.F.R. § 42.204(b)(3)
`
`1.
`
`The ’341 Patent
`
`The design patent application that ultimately issued as the ’341 Patent, entitled
`
`“Vehicle Fender,” was filed on November 7, 2017 and assigned Application No.
`
`29/625,135 (“the ’135 Application”). Ex. 1002 (File History of the ’135
`
`Application), at 31. The ’135 Application contained a single claim for “[t]he
`
`ornamental design for a VEHICLE FENDER, as shown and described.” Id. at 42.
`
`The ’135 Application contained four figures. Id. at 49–50. The initial Information
`
`Disclosure Statement submitted as part of the ’135 Application disclosed 249
`
`references, including nine utility patents and 240 design patents, but did not disclose
`
`any non-patent publications depicting prior art automobiles. Id. at 1–25.
`
`The ’135 Application did not receive any rejections and received its first
`
`Notice of Allowance on October 10, 2018. Id. at 71. Patent Owner filed a Continued
`
`Prosecution Application on December 19, 2018, together with an Information
`
`Disclosure Statement disclosing an additional 89 references. Id. at 111–24. These
`
`disclosed references included eighty-nine design patents, but once again, did not
`
`include any publications depicting prior art automobiles. Id. at 114–24. Moreover,
`
`pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)(2)(B), 57 of these 89 references were not even prior
`
`art to the ’135 Application. Ex. 1003, Gandy Dec. at ¶ 51. The Patent Office issued
`
`9
`
`

`

`a second Notice of Allowance on January 16, 2019. Ex. 1002, at 130. The ’341
`
`Patent issued on June 4, 2019. Id. at 158.
`
`The figures of the ’341 Patent and their associated descriptions are set forth
`
`below:
`
`
`
`
`
` “FIG. 1 is a front and left perspective
`view of the vehicle fender according to
`the present disclosure.” Ex. 1001, at 1.
`
`“FIG. 2 is a top plan view thereof.”
`Ex. 1001, at 1.
`
`
`
`
`
`“FIG. 3 is a left end elevation view
`thereof.” Ex. 1001, at 1.
`
`“FIG. 4 is a front elevation view
`thereof.” Ex. 1001, at 1.
`
`10
`
`

`

`The patent further states that “[t]he second embodiment of the vehicle fender
`
`is a mirror image of the first embodiment disclosed in FIGS. 1 through 4 and is not
`
`shown.” Ex. 1001, at 1. The description further provides that “[t]he broken lines
`
`shown in the drawings, depict portions of the vehicle fender that form no part of the
`
`claimed design” and “[t]he shade lines in the figures show contour and not surface
`
`ornamentation.” Id.
`
`The claimed design is embodied by the 2020 Cadillac CT4. Ex. 1003, Gandy
`
`Dec. at ¶ 34; Ex. 1004, Hill Dec. at ¶ 32. The design of the 2020 CT4 was described
`
`in coverage by CNET, a major online publication, as “an evolutionary take on
`
`Cadillac’s long-running ‘Art & Science’ theme.” Ex. 1006, at 2. Images of the
`
`embodying design as it appears on the 2020 CT4 appear below:
`
`Ex. 1005, at 1.
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`Ex. 1006, at 1 (cropped).
`
`
`
`
`
`Ex. 1007, at 1.
`
`2.
`
`Claim Construction of the ’341 Patent
`
`In a post grant review (“PGR”), “a claim of a patent . . . shall be construed
`
`using the same claim construction standard that would be used to construe the claim
`
`12
`
`

`

`in a civil action under 35 U.S.C. § 282(b), including construing the claim in
`
`accordance with the ordinary and customary meaning of such claim as understood
`
`by one of ordinary skill in the art and the prosecution history pertaining to the
`
`patent.” 37 C.F.R § 42.100(b).1 LKQ therefore employs that standard herein.
`
`The scope of a design patent is defined by the solid lines (not the broken or
`
`dashed lines) depicted in the claimed drawings in conjunction with their
`
`descriptions. See, e.g., Egyptian Goddess, Inc. v. Swisa, Inc., 543 F.3d 665, 680
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2008) (en banc) (citing 37 C.F.R. § 1.152). It is well-settled that a design
`
`is represented better by an illustration than a description. Egyptian Goddess, 543
`
`F.3d at 679 (citing Dobson v. Dornan, 118 U.S. 10, 14 (1886)); see also, Sport
`
`
`
`1
`
` Effective November 13, 2018, the so-called broadest reasonable interpretation
`
`(“BRI”) standard is no longer appropriate. See https://www.uspto.gov/patents-
`
`application-process/patent-trial-and-appeal-board/procedures/ptab-issues-claim-
`
`construction. Instead, all PGR proceedings must conduct their claim constructions
`
`using the Phillips standard put forth by the Federal Circuit in Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
`
`415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). That change was made to bring the PTAB
`
`in line with the federal courts and the International Trade Commission in
`
`examination
`
`standards.
`
`
`
`See
`
`https://www.uspto.gov/patents-application-
`
`process/patent-trial-and-appeal-board/procedures/ptab-issues-claim-construction.
`
`13
`
`

`

`Dimension, Inc. v. The Coleman Co., 820 F.3d 1316, 1320 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (citing
`
`cases). However, it may be “helpful to point out . . . various features of the claimed
`
`design as they relate to the . . . prior art,” and thus LKQ does so herein. Egyptian
`
`Goddess, 543 F.3d at 680. Moreover, the Federal Circuit has held that failure to
`
`articulate a description of the claimed design constitutes reversible error. High Point
`
`Design LLC v. Buyers Direct, Inc., 730 F.3d 1301, 1314–15 (Fed. Cir. 2013)
`
`(remanding to district court, in part, for a “verbal description of the claimed design
`
`to evoke a visual image consonant with that design”). Further, the scope of a design
`
`patent claim should be limited to the ornamental aspects of the design, and it is
`
`appropriate to distinguish the ornamental from non-ornamental (e.g., functional)
`
`aspects of the design during claim construction, but it is not appropriate to entirely
`
`eliminate structural portions of the claimed design. Sport Dimension, 820 F.3d at
`
`1320–22 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Accord Ethicon Endo-Surgery, Inc. v. Covidien, Inc., 796
`
`F.3d 1312, 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (limiting claim to the ornamental aspects of
`
`elements that were both ornamental and functional).
`
`The specification of the ’341 Patent claims “[t]he ornamental design for a
`
`vehicle fender, as shown and described.” See Ex. 1001, at 1. The specification
`
`disclaims any broken lines in the figures, stating “[t]he broken lines shown in the
`
`drawings depict portions of the vehicle fender that form no part of the claimed
`
`14
`
`

`

`design.” Id. Setting aside the unclaimed elements, the claimed design can be
`
`described as:
`
`A vehicle fender comprising:
`
`a protrusion extending upwardly and rearwardly from an upper rear portion
`
`of the fender;
`
`
`
`Ex. 1001, FIG. 3 (annotated);
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`

`a first crease substantially parallel and proximal to a top edge of the fender;
`
`
`
`
`
`Ex. 1001, FIG. 3 (cropped and annotated);
`
`a beak-like front portion;
`
`Ex. 1001, FIG. 3 (cropped and annotated);
`
`
`
`an arcuate wheel arch defining an obtuse angle with the beak-like front
`
`portion;
`
`16
`
`

`

`
`
`FIG-3
`
`
`
`Ex. 1001, FIG. 3 (cropped and annotated);
`EX. 1001, FIG. 3 (cropped and annotated);
`
`a rear lower portion comprising a second crease that is downwardly curved,
`a rear lower portion comprising a second crease that is downwardly curved,
`
`and a bottom crease feature; and
`and a bottom crease feature; and
`
` Fourth Crease
`
`Third Crease
`
`Ex. 1001, FIG. 3 (cropped and annotated);
`EX. 1001, FIG. 3 (cropped and annotated);
`
`
`
`17
`17
`
`

`

`
`
`a generally convex front elevation profile slants upwards and inwards above
`
`the wheel arch.
`
`Ex. 1001, FIG. 4. See also Ex. 1003, Gandy Dec. at ¶ 35 and Ex. 1004, Hill Dec. at
`
`¶ 33 (construing the claim).
`
`
`
`18
`
`

`

`These features are identified in the below annotated version of Figure 3:
`
`
`
`
`
`Ex. 1003, Gandy Dec. at ¶ 36; Ex. 1004, Hill Dec. at ¶ 34. The claimed design
`
`is disclosed through several figures that show the design from different perspectives;
`
`a design is best represented by images rather than words, and although a verbal
`
`construction is required, it is impractical to attempt to verbally characterize every
`
`element of the claimed design. The above claim construction identifies all features
`
`of the claimed design that materially contribute to the overall visual impression it
`
`creates; however, the below analyses compare the asserted prior art with the claimed
`
`design in its entirety as depicted in each of the disclosed figures. Ex. 1003, Gandy
`
`Dec., ¶ 36; Ex. 1004, Hill Dec., ¶ 34.
`
`19
`
`

`

`D. How the Challenged Claim
`§ 42.204(b)(4)
`
`is Unpatentable – 37 C.F.R.
`
`Specifically, and as will be addressed more fully herein, there are four
`
`alternative and non-redundant grounds for unpatentability of the ’341 Patent.
`
`• First, the single claim of the ’341 Patent is invalid in light of the
`
`doctrine of exhaustion;
`
`• Second, the single claim of the ’341 Patent is unpatentable as
`
`anticipated by a publication disclosing Patent Owner’s 2015 Cadillac
`
`ATS Coupe (Ex. 1008);
`
`• Third, alternatively, the single claim of the ’341 Patent is unpatentable
`
`as obvious over a publication disclosing Patent Owner’s 2015 Cadillac
`
`ATS Coupe; and
`
`• Fourth, alternatively, the single claim of the ’341 Patent is
`
`unpatentable as obvious over a publication disclosing Patent Owner’s
`
`2015 Cadillac ATS Coupe in view of Munson (Ex. 1009).
`
`E.
`
`Evidence Relied Upon to Support the Challenge and the Relevance
`of the Evidence to the Challenge Raised – 37 C.F.R. § 42.204(b)(5)
`
`The following prior art reference anticipates the claim of the ’341 Patent:
`
`Exhibit
`
`Description
`
`Publication Date
`
`1008
`
`2015 Cadillac ATS Coupe
`(Autoweek Publication)
`
`05/17/2015
`
`20
`
`

`

`The following prior art references render the claim of the ’341 Patent obvious:
`
`Exhibit Primary /
`Secondary
`
`Description
`
`1008
`
`Primary
`
`1009
`
`Secondary
`
`2015 Cadillac ATS
`Coupe (Autoweek
`Publication)
`
`U.S. Design Patent
`No. D722,534
`(“Munson”)
`
`Filing
`
`Date
`
`Publication /
`Issue Date
`
`N/A
`
`05/17/2015
`
`12/13/2013
`
`02/17/2015
`
`Exhibit 1010 is submitted to support the public accessibility and authenticity
`
`of the printed publication exhibits and other prior art forming the basis of the
`
`invalidity grounds. In addition, for each of the above prior art references, further
`
`evidence is submitted and set forth below establishing its public accessibility and
`
`authenticity. This includes, inter alia, archived copies of the “robots.txt” files
`
`corresponding to each of the websites relied upon as prior art that demonstrate that
`
`each such website was indexable by search engines and thus publicly accessible at
`
`the time the relied-upon prior art webpages were archived. See Ex. 1010; Field v.
`
`Google, Inc., 412 F. Supp. 2d 1106, 1110–13, 1120 (D. Nev. 2006) (explaining the
`
`functionality and use of “robots.txt” files, and finding that inclusion of a “robots.txt”
`
`file enabling search engine indexing demonstrated that the website owner sought to
`
`make the contents of the website available “to the widest possible audience”). In its
`
`21
`
`

`

`totality, this Petition provides compelling evidence of public accessibility that the
`
`Patent Owner cannot reasonably refute, or at the very least provides evidence
`
`“sufficient to establish a reasonable likelihood that [its asserted references were]
`
`publicly accessible before the critical date of the challenged patent and therefore that
`
`there is a reasonable likelihood that it qualifies as a printed publication.” Hulu, LLC
`
`v. Sound View Innovations, LLC, IPR2018-01039, Paper 29, at *13, *18 (P.T.A.B.
`
`Dec. 20, 2019) (setting forth the standard required of printed publications for
`
`institution of an IPR).
`
`As an initial matter, each of the above prior art references qualify as prior art
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 102. The Autoweek publication of GM’s 2015 ATS Coupe
`
`qualifies as prior art. At least as early as May 17, 2015, the design of the 2015 ATS
`
`Coupe2 was made publicly available online, attainable through use of pertinent
`
`
`
`2 Each of the depictions of motor vehicles in Exhibit 1008 are screenshots of
`
`publicly available documents or websites as they existed as of the date indicated in
`
`the respective exhibits, and as noted herein. Each of the screenshots have been
`
`retrieved from the Internet Archive organization’s “Wayback Machine,” an internet
`
`archive that collects and indexes copies of historical webpages. See Ex. 1011,
`
`Herrmann Dec. at ¶ 8. An affidavit has been reque