Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`Paper: 8
`Date: September 1, 2020
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`LKQ CORPORATION and
`KEYSTONE AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRIES, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`GM GLOBAL TECHNOLOGY OPERATIONS LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`PGR2020-00022
`Patent D850,341 S
`____________
`
`
`Before GRACE KARAFFA OBERMANN, SCOTT A. DANIELS, and
`CHRISTOPHER G. PAULRAJ, Administrative Patent Judges.
`OBERMANN, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`DECISION
`Denying Institution of Inter Partes Review
`35 U.S.C. § 324(a)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`571-272-7822
`
`Paper: 8
`Date: September 1, 2020
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`LKQ CORPORATION and
`KEYSTONE AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRIES, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`GM GLOBAL TECHNOLOGY OPERATIONS LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`PGR2020-00022
`Patent D850,341 S
`____________
`
`
`Before GRACE KARAFFA OBERMANN, SCOTT A. DANIELS, and
`CHRISTOPHER G. PAULRAJ, Administrative Patent Judges.
`OBERMANN, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`DECISION
`Denying Institution of Inter Partes Review
`35 U.S.C. § 324(a)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PGR2020-00022
`Patent D850,341 S
`
`I. INTRODUCTION
`
`A. Background
`Petitioner filed a Petition (Paper 2, “Pet.”) requesting post-grant
`review of the sole claim for a “vehicle fender” design disclosed in U.S.
`Patent D850,341 S (Ex. 1001, “the ’341 Patent”). Ex. 1001, code (54).
`Patent Owner filed a Preliminary Response. Paper 7 (“Prelim. Resp.”). We
`have authority to determine whether to institute post-grant review upon a
`showing “that it is more likely than not that” the challenged claim is
`unpatentable. 35 U.S.C. § 324(a). Based on the information presented in
`the Petition and Preliminary Response, we find that Petitioner has not met
`that threshold for review. We deny the Petition and do not institute review.
`
`
`
`B. Real Parties in Interest
`Petitioner identifies LKQ Corporation and Keystone Automotive
`Industries, Inc. as real parties-in-interest. Pet. 5. Patent Owner identifies
`General Motors LLC and GM Global Technology Operations LLC as real
`parties-in-interest. Paper 3, 2.
`C. Related Matters
`The parties identify various other inter partes and post-grant review
`proceedings in which Petitioner challenges different patents owned by Patent
`Owner. Neither party states that any of those proceedings would affect, or
`be affected by, the outcome in this proceeding. Pet. 5–6; Paper 3, 2.
`
`D. The Claim of the ’341 Patent
`The ’341 Patent claims an “ornamental design for a vehicle fender” as
`depicted in the following figures. Ex. 1001, code (57).
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`PGR2020-00022
`Patent D850,341 S
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Ex. 1001. Figures 1–4 above are line drawings that depict, respectively, a
`front and left perspective view, a top plan view, a left end elevation view,
`and a front elevation view of the claimed vehicle bumper design. Id. (57).
`
`E. Prior Art and Asserted Grounds
`Petitioner challenges the patentability of the claim based on the
`following grounds of unpatentability.
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`PGR2020-00022
`Patent D850,341 S
`
`Ground
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`
`35 U.S.C. §
`
`171
`102
`103
`103
`
`Claim
`Challenged
`1
`1
`1
`1
`
`Reference(s)/Basis
`Patent Exhaustion,
`Right-of-Repair
`2015 ATS Coupe1
`2015 ATS Coupe
`2015 ATS Coupe,
`Munson2
`See Pet. 8 (statement of grounds, lacking any particularity), 43, 46, 58, 64
`(identifying statutory provisions and, where applicable, prior art relied
`upon). Petitioner submits the Declaration of James M. Gandy (Ex. 1003)
`and the Declaration of Jason C. Hill (Ex. 1004) in support of its arguments.
`
`ANALYSIS
`II.
`The Designer of Ordinary Skill
`A.
`Petitioner, relying on opinion testimony provided by Mr. Gandy and
`Mr. Hill, contends that a designer of ordinary skill in the art
`would be an individual who has at least an undergraduate degree
`in transportation or automotive design and work experience in
`the field of transportation design, or someone who has several
`years’ work experience in the field of transportation or
`automotive design.
`Pet. 40 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 40; Ex. 1004 ¶ 38). Patent Owner responds,
`without citation to evidence:
`A designer of ordinary skill in the art relevant to the ’341 Patent
`would have at least an undergraduate degree in automotive
`design, or other related industrial design field, with at least two
`years of relevant practical experience in designing automotive
`
`1 We adopt Petitioner’s convention and refer to Exhibit 1008 as “2015 ATS
`Coupe.” Pet. 3.
`
` We adopt Petitioner’s convention and refer to Exhibit 1009 as “Munson.”
`Pet. 21.
`
` 2
`
`4
`
`
`
`PGR2020-00022
`Patent D850,341 S
`body parts. An increase in experience could compensate for less
`education, and an
`increase in education could
`likewise
`compensate for less experience.
`Prelim. Resp. 9. The parties do not identify, and we do not discern, a
`material difference between the two proposed definitions. For purposes of
`this decision and on the record presented, which includes testimony only
`from Petitioner’s declarants, we adopt Petitioner’s proposed definition of the
`designer of ordinary skill. But adoption of Patent Owner’s definition would
`not alter the outcome of this decision.
`B.
`The Ordinary Observer
`The parties also offer somewhat differing definitions of an “ordinary
`observer.” Pet. 41–42; Prelim. Resp. 6–9. According to Petitioner, “the
`ordinary observer should be the retail consumer of an automobile.” Pet. 41–
`42 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 38; Ex. 1004 ¶ 37). Petitioner directs us to no
`objective proof for that assessment, and does not elaborate on who may
`qualify as a retail consumer of an automobile.
`Patent Owner expresses general disagreement with Petitioner’s
`definition of the ordinary observer. Prelim. Resp. 6–9. Specifically, Patent
`Owner contends that Petitioner’s definition is “unsupported.” Id. at 8.
`Further, in Patent Owner’s view, “the ordinary observer includes
`commercial buyers who purchase replacement vehicle front fenders to repair
`a customer’s vehicle, such as repair shop professionals.” Id. at 7. Patent
`Owner also contends that Petitioner admitted in a related proceeding that
`“customers for aftermarket automotive parts primarily consist of
`professional auto body and mechanical repair shops who are knowledgeable
`about the automotive industry.” Id. (quoting IPR2020-00065, Paper 2, at 21)
`(emphasis omitted). Patent Owner observes, “Because a repair shop buyer
`
`5
`
`
`
`PGR2020-00022
`Patent D850,341 S
`reviews and analyzes various products as part of his or her job duties, that
`buyer is particularly discerning.” Id.; Ex. 2003, 4 (“LKQ’s customers for
`aftermarket automotive parts primarily consist of professional auto body and
`mechanical repair shops who are knowledgeable about the automotive
`industry.”) (emphasis omitted).
`Based on the information presented, we agree with Patent Owner that
`the definition of the ordinary observer includes a repair shop professional.
`The evidence also supports a finding that a retail consumer, such as the
`owner of a vehicle, may also be in the position of an ordinary observer. A
`vehicle owner may have a contract with its insurance agent that “require[s]
`the insurer to repair vehicles with parts of ‘like kind and quality’ to the OEM
`parts.” Ex. 2003, 14, see id. at 11 (“Automobile owners seek to repair their
`automobiles in a way that returns their automobile as closely as possible to
`its original appearance and condition.”). Accordingly, for purposes of this
`decision, we accept that both parties’ definitions are within the purview of
`an ordinary observer. But adopting one parties’ definition of the ordinary
`observer over the other would not change the result in this case.
`
`Claim Construction
`C.
`In an inter partes review requested in a petition filed on or after
`November 13, 2018, we apply the same claim construction standard used in
`district courts, namely, that articulated in Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d
`1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). See 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) (2019). A
`design claim is represented better by an illustration than a textual
`description. Egyptian Goddess, Inc. v. Swisa, Inc., 543 F.3d 665, 679 (Fed.
`Cir. 2008) (en banc) (citing Dobson v. Dornan, 118 U.S. 10, 14 (1886)).
`
`6
`
`
`
`PGR2020-00022
`Patent D850,341 S
`The ’341 patent claim does not require an express (that is, textual)
`construction for purposes of this decision. We rely on Figures 1–4 of
`the ’341 patent, which reflect the scope of the patented design. Accordingly,
`we determine that no articulated verbal description is necessary to describe
`the overall ornamental nature of the ’341 design. Nonetheless, we have
`taken into account Petitioner’s verbal description of the design in our
`analysis, but agree with Patent Owner’s contention that Petitioner’s verbal
`description is an incomplete description of the actual design. Although we
`do not undertake a specific verbal construction, we acknowledge in our
`following analysis the relevant design characteristics of the claimed design,
`including key similarities and distinctions relative to the prior art. See MRC
`Innovations, Inc. v. Hunter Mfg., LLP, 747 F.3d 1326, 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2014)
`(Affirming that a verbal claim construction was unnecessary, the Federal
`Circuit explained that “the district court did not err by failing to provide an
`express verbal description of the claimed design; rather, it described the
`claimed design in the context of comparing it to the prior art.”).
`D.
`Petitioner Fails to Discern the Correct Visual
`Impression Created by the Claimed Design as a Whole
`
`As an initial matter, for reasons that follow, we find that Petitioner
`fails to discern the correct visual impression created by the claimed design
`as a whole. That defect, when considered along with Petitioner’s
`comparison to the prior art, supports declining to institute review based on
`the anticipation and obviousness grounds.
`Petitioner describes the claimed design as a vehicle fender
`comprising: (1) “a protrusion extending upwardly and rearwardly from an
`upper rear portion of the fender”; (2) “a first crease substantially parallel and
`proximal to a top edge of the fender”; (3) “a beak-like front portion”; (4) “an
`
`7
`
`
`
`PGR2020-00022
`Patent D850,341 S
`arcuate wheel arch defining an obtuse angle with the beak-like front
`portion”; (5) “a rear lower portion comprising a second crease that is
`downwardly curved, and a bottom crease feature”; and (6) “a generally
`convex front elevation profile” that “slants upwards and inwards above the
`wheel arch.” Pet. 13–18 (citing Ex. 1001, Figs. 3, 4; Ex. 1003 ¶ 35;
`Ex. 1004 ¶ 33). Petitioner advances five annotated versions of Figure 3 of
`the ’341 patent that correspond, respectively, to each of the first five asserted
`features, and an annotated version of Figure 4 that corresponds to the sixth
`asserted feature. We reproduce them by number in the chart below.
`1.
`2.
`
`
`
`
`
`4.
`
`6.
`
`
`
`3.
`
`5.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`PGR2020-00022
`Patent D850,341 S
`Id. The above chart contains six annotated and color-coded line drawings
`that correspond to the six features Petitioner identifies as features of the
`claimed design. Petitioner further alleges all six relevant features are
`identified in a color coded, annotated version of Figure 3, reproduced below.
`
`
`Id. at 19 (citing Ex. 1001, Fig. 3; Ex. 1003 ¶ 36; Ex. 1004, ¶ 34). The above
`figure is a color-coded and annotated version of Figure 3 of the ’341 patent
`that highlights (1) a protrusion (in purple shading); (2) a first crease (without
`color coding); (3) a beak-like front portion (in green shading); (4) an obtuse
`angle (in red lines); and (5) a rear lower portion that includes a second, third,
`and fourth crease (in blue shading). We observe that this figure refers to the
`first five asserted features but ignores the sixth.
`Petitioner asserts that its description “identifies all features of the
`claimed design that materially contribute to the overall visual impression it
`creates.” Pet. 19 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 36; Ex. 1004 ¶ 34). For reasons that
`follow, we disagree with that contention based on persuasive information
`presented by Patent Owner. Specifically, Patent Owner identifies three
`features, which contribute to the overall visual impression of the claimed
`
`9
`
`
`
`PGR2020-00022
`Patent D850,341 S
`design, but which are not addressed adequately, if at all, in the Petition.
`Prelim. Resp. 17–22.
`First, Patent Owner points out that the protrusion (shaded in purple by
`Petitioner in the annotated version of Figure 3 above) is formed of two
`distinct surface portions, “an arcuate-shaped top portion” and “a unique
`bottom portion.” Id. at 18. Patent Owner highlights those portions in color-
`coded and annotated versions of Figures 1–4, which we reproduce below.
`
`
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`PGR2020-00022
`Patent D850,341 S
`Id. at 18–19. The above illustration includes annotated versions of
`Figures 1–4 of the ’341 patent, color coded to highlight (in blue) the asserted
`arcuate crease line that divides the protrusion into an upper portion
`(highlighted in yellow) and bottom portion (highlighted in orange).
`Petitioner fails to account for these features in its proposed claim
`construction. Pet. 13–18. Patent Owner shows persuasively that those
`features (and, in particular, the elongated portion highlighted in orange by
`Patent Owner) contribute to the overall visual impression created by the
`challenged claim. Prelim. Resp. 18–19.
`Further, as Patent Owner points out, the Petition includes “no analysis
`of the relative width and proportions of the fender frame” or “the main
`body” of the claimed design, and focuses instead on general “design
`concepts.” Id. at 20-21. On that point, we find particularly persuasive
`Patent Owner’s observation that the main body of the claimed fender design
`“is substantially smooth and has no crease lines, and includes a substantially
`vertical rear perimeter edge.” Id. at 20–21. We reproduce below a figure
`provided by Patent Owner that illustrates Petitioner’s focus on “peripheral
`features” and the lack of analysis of the visual impact created by the main
`body portion of the fender. Id. at 21.
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`PGR2020-00022
`Patent D850,341 S
`Id. The above figure is Petitioner’s annotated version of Figure 3 of the ’341
`patent, as further annotated by Patent Owner to include a red dotted line that
`highlights a main body shape, defined by solid lines in the challenged claim,
`which is not addressed in Petitioner’s claim construction. See Pet. 19
`(Petitioner’s annotated version, reproduced, supra, at 9).
`
`Third, Patent Owner argues that Petitioner’s claim construction
`highlights an “‘obtuse angle’ feature associated with the wheel arch” but
`“fails to acknowledge the obtuse angle formed by the rear lateral edge” of
`the fender. Prelim. Resp. 22 (quoting Pet. 16–17). We agree. The obtuse
`angle identified by Patent Owner, and ignored by Petitioner, is illustrated in
`the following figure.
`
`
`Id. The above figure is an annotated and color-coded version of Figure 3 of
`the ’341 patent, in which Patent Owner highlights in red and blue the obtuse
`angle feature formed by the rear lateral edge of the claimed fender design.
`Taken together, the features identified by Patent Owner “affect the
`overall shape of the claimed design and contribute to its” overall “visual
`appearance.” Prelim. Resp. 26–27. Those features are ignored (or at least
`not sufficiently considered) in the analysis set forth in the Petition. See
`Pet. 55, 57, 59 (arguing that only a single “minor” difference exists between
`the 2015 ATS Coupe fender design and the challenged claim, but failing to
`address the features identified by Patent Owner and discussed above).
`
`12
`
`
`
`PGR2020-00022
`Patent D850,341 S
`E.
`Ground Based on Anticipation
`Petitioner asserts that the challenged design claim is anticipated by the
`
`2016 ATS Coupe. Pet. 46–58. In that regard, Petitioner argues, “There is
`only one potential difference between the 2015 ATS Coupe” and the claimed
`design; namely, a “minor difference” related to the “’bottom crease’ feature,
`made of the third and fourth creases” in the challenged claim. Pet. 55; see
`supra 9 (for Petitioner’s annotated version of Figure 3, which highlights (in
`blue shading) the creases at issue).
`
`We are persuaded by Patent Owner that Petitioner ignores prominent
`features that contribute to the overall visual impression of the claimed
`design. Prelim. Resp. 25–35. Those features are discussed above in
`connection with Petitioner’s failure to discern the overall visual impression
`created by the claimed design. We highlight below illustrations from the
`Preliminary Response, which persuasively show how and why Petitioner’s
`analysis is inadequate to demonstrate sufficiently that the 2015 ATS Coupe
`fender design anticipates the challenged claim. See id. (comparative
`illustrations advanced by Patent Owner).
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`PGR2020-00022
`Patent D850,341 S
`Id. at 24 (citing Pet. 48). The above illustration is a side-by-side comparison
`of Figure 2 of the ’341 patent (on the left) and a cropped and flipped
`illustration of the 2015 ATS Coupe (on the right). Notably, as Patent Owner
`observes, this illustration represents Petitioner’s only attempt to address “the
`plan view of the claimed design” as claimed in Figure 2. Id. Petitioner’s
`comparison of that claimed plan view to “a perspective view of the side of
`the [prior art] vehicle” leaves us unable to meaningfully assess whether the
`“full three-dimensionality of the claimed design” is met by the 2015 ATS
`Coupe. Id. (emphasis in original).
`
`
`
`
`
`Id. at 25–26. The above illustration is a side-by-side comparison of Patent
`Owner’s partial, reversed, annotated version of Figure 1 of the ’341 patent
`(on the left) and a partial, annotated version of Exhibit 1008 (on the right).
`This comparison represents compelling evidence that the protrusion of the
`claimed design is characterized by an arcuate crease line that creates a
`materially different visual impression than the horizontal crease line that
`characterizes the protrusion in the 2015 ATS Coupe. The protrusion of the
`claimed design is defined by two surface shapes significantly different from
`corresponding shapes in the prior art design, as further illustrated in the
`following comparison illustration.
`
`14
`
`
`
`PGR2020-00022
`Patent D850,341 S
`
`
`
`
`
`Prelim. Resp. 27. The above illustration compares Patent Owner’s color
`coded, partial views of the claimed protrusion feature (on the left) with
`photographs of the protrusion feature of the 2015 ATS Coupe (on the right).
`This illustration demonstrates persuasively that, in the claimed design, an
`arcuate crease divides in the protrusion into two surfaces having “unique and
`complex geometry,” whereas, in the prior art fender design, a horizontal
`crease divides the protrusion into a triangular upper surface and “a
`substantially parallelogram-shaped bottom portion.” Id.
`
`Further, as explained above, the Petition fails to address the “crease-
`less” and “smooth surface characteristics of the claimed design’s main
`body.” Id. at 28. That feature stands in stark contrast to the main body of
`the fender in the prior art, which is characterized by a prominent crease that
`“extends along the entire length of the vehicle.” Id. at 30. This further
`
`15
`
`
`
`PGR2020-00022
`Patent D850,341 S
`distinguishes the claimed and prior art designs, as illustrated in the following
`comparison illustration.
`
`
`
`
` Id. at 28, 31. The above illustration compares Patent Owner’s color coded,
`annotated version of Figure 1 from the ’341 patent (on the top) with a
`partial, annotated photograph from 2015 ATS Coupe (Ex. 1008, 2) (on the
`bottom). The illustration shows the smooth, crease-less main body of the
`claimed design, and the contrasting main body of the prior art fender, which
`features a horizontal crease.
`
`16
`
`
`
`PGR2020-00022
`Patent D850,341 S
`Patent Owner raises other differences, including dissimilarities in
`angles and curves as between the claimed and prior art fender designs, which
`further expose the inadequacy of the analysis provided in the Petition.
`Prelim. Resp. 31–35. On this record, we are persuaded that Petitioner does
`not acknowledge, much less analyze adequately, a host of visually
`prominent features that distinguish the claimed fender design from that
`disclosed in 2015 ATS Coupe. Accordingly, we find that Petitioner fails to
`meet its burden of demonstrating that it is more likely than not that the
`subject matter of the challenged claim is anticipated by 2015 ATS Coupe.
`
`
`
`Grounds Based on Obviousness
`F.
`Petitioner advances two obviousness grounds; one based on the 2015
`ATS Coupe alone, and another based on that reference in combination with
`Munson. To meet the threshold showing for trial institution on these
`grounds, Petitioner must first identify “a reference, a something in existence,
`the design characteristics of which are basically the same as the claimed
`design.” In re Rosen, 673 F.2d 388, 391 (CCPA 1982). As part of that
`inquiry, Petitioner must “discern the correct visual impression created by the
`patented design as a whole.” Durling v. Spectrum Furniture Co., 101 F.3d
`100, 103 (Fed. Cir. 1996). For reasons explained above, we find that
`Petitioner fails to “discern the correct visual impression created by the
`patented design as a whole.” Id. That failure, standing alone, justifies
`declining to institute trial on the obviousness grounds.
`Alternatively, the Petition is deficient because it fails to identify “a
`reference, a something in existence, the design characteristics of which are
`basically the same as the claimed design.” In re Rosen, 673 F.2d at 391.
`Petitioner asserts that the 2015 ATS Coupe is a Rosen reference. Pet. 58.
`
`17
`
`
`
`PGR2020-00022
`Patent D850,341 S
`Patent Owner responds that Petitioner does not “provide any explanation”
`accounting for the “visible differences” between the fender design disclosed
`in 2015 ATS Coupe and the challenged claim, which we discuss above.
`Prelim. Resp. 36 n.4. On that basis, we agree with Patent Owner that
`Petitioner fails also to demonstrate that the 2015 ATS Coupe qualifies “as a
`proper Rosen reference.” Id. Accordingly, Petitioner fails to meet its burden
`of demonstrating that it is more likely than not that the subject matter of the
`challenged claim would have been obvious over the asserted prior art.
`
`G. Ground Based on Patent Exhaustion and, Right-to-Repair
`In addition to the obviousness grounds present in the Petition,
`Petitioner contends that the ’341 patent should be found unpatentable
`because “it is a design applied to a functionless component part of a
`functional whole, and therefore empowers [Patent Owner] and other OEMs
`with the ability to improperly subvert the exhaustion doctrine and prevent
`consumers from exercising their right to repair their own vehicles.” Pet. 43.
`In Petitioner’s view, a design patent properly can issue only for a complete
`article, not a part or sub-part. Id. at 43.
`Patent Owner, for its part, counters that the law permits design patents
`to issue on particular vehicle components. Prelim. Resp. 10 (citing
`Automotive Body Parts Ass’n v. Ford Global Techs., 930 F.3d 1314, 1325
`(Fed. Cir. 2019)). Patent Owner further argues, persuasively, “Exhaustion is
`not an invalidity ground, but rather, an affirmative defense to patent
`infringement,” and that “right of repair is a related doctrine and similarly is
`not an invalidity ground.” Id. at 11. We are further persuaded by Patent
`Owner’s position that, because the doctrines of exhaustion and right-of-
`repair are not permitted grounds for post-grant review, they cannot serve as a
`
`18
`
`
`
`PGR2020-00022
`Patent D850,341 S
`basis for invalidity in this proceeding. Id. at 12 (citing 37 C.F.R. §42.204).
`In addition, as Patent Owner points out, the facts in Automotive Body Parts
`and the present case are similar; thus, the outcome should be similar as well,
`and “there is no exhaustion.” Id. at 13 (citing Automotive Body Parts, 930
`F.3d at 1322). Patent Owner asserts similar, and similarly persuasive,
`arguments in connection with the right-of-repair issue. Id. at 13–14.
`Having considered the information presented in the Petition and
`Preliminary Response, we find Petitioner’s assertions insufficient legally,
`and underdeveloped factually, to adequately support this ground. It appears
`that Petitioner is making more of a policy argument as to why design patents
`should not extend to automotive body parts rather than relying upon any
`particular statutory basis for unpatentability. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.204
`(requiring Petitioner to identify “[t]he specific statutory grounds permitted
`under 35 U.S.C. 282(b)(2) or (3) on which the challenge to the claim is
`based”). Petitioner contends that design patents are limited to an “article of
`manufacture” under 35 U.S.C. § 171 and the “original meaning of an ‘article
`of manufacture’ was an article that was complete in itself, and not a part or
`sub-part of something that needed further assembly to be functional.”
`Pet. 43. The Supreme Court more recently has interpreted the term “article
`of manufacture,” as used in 35 U.S.C. § 289, to encompass both a product
`sold to a consumer and a component of that product. Samsung Elecs. Co. v.
`Apple Inc., 137 S. Ct. 429, 434–435 (2016) (noting that the fact that “a
`component may be integrated into a larger product . . . does not put it
`outside the category of articles of manufacture.”). The Court also indicated
`that this reading of article of manufacture in § 289 is consistent with how
`“[t]he Patent Office and courts have understood § 171 to permit a design
`patent for a design extending to only a component of a multicomponent
`
`19
`
`
`
`PGR2020-00022
`Patent D850,341 S
`product.” Id. at 435 (citations omitted). The Federal Circuit has likewise
`recognized that design patents for auto-body components are permissible
`under § 171. See Automotive Body Parts Association, 930 F.3d at 1325
`(“Ford chose to claim designs as applied to portions of particular
`components, and the law permits it to do so.”). Petitioner does not address
`this case law in the Petition.
`Accordingly, on this record, Petitioner has not met its burden of
`demonstrating that it is more likely than not that the challenged claim is
`unpatentable based on this ground.
`
`III. CONCLUSION
`For the above reasons, we find that Petitioner has not demonstrated
`
`that it is more likely than not that the challenged claim of the ’341 patent is
`unpatentable. Accordingly, we deny the Petition and do not institute review.
`
`IV. ORDER
`
`It is
`ORDERED that that the Petition is denied and post-grant review is
`not instituted.
`
`
`20
`
`
`
`PGR2020-00022
`Patent D850,341 S
`PETITIONER:
`Barry Irwin
`birwin@irwinip.com
`
`Reid Huefner
`rhuefner@irwinip.com
`
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`
`Dorothy Whelan
`whelan@fr.com
`
`Jennifer Huang
`jjh@fr.com
`
`Craig Deutsch
`deutsch@fr.com
`
`Grace Kim
`gkim@fr.com
`
`21
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
