DCT

2:23-cv-13026

GM Global Technology Operations LLC v. Quality Collision Parts Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: GM Global Technology Operations, LLC (Delaware)
- Defendant: Quality Collision Parts, Inc. (Michigan)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Honigman LLP
Case Identification: GM Global Technology Operations, LLC v. Quality Collision Parts, Inc., 2:23-cv-13026, E.D. Mich., 11/29/2023
Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper as Defendant is a Michigan corporation with a regular and established place of business within the Eastern District of Michigan.
Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s aftermarket automotive replacement parts infringe ten of Plaintiff's U.S. design patents covering vehicle components such as headlamps, grilles, and bumpers.
Technical Context: The dispute centers on the ornamental designs of automotive components, which are a key aspect of brand identity and vehicle aesthetics in the competitive automotive and aftermarket parts industries.
Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges a history of notice, including a U.S. Customs and Border Protection seizure of Defendant's parts in July 2022, a subsequent infringement analysis by Plaintiff provided to CBP in December 2022, notification via a virtual patent marking list in May 2023, and a formal written notice of infringement in June 2023.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2011-07-13	D670,840 Patent Priority Date
2012-11-13	D670,840 Patent Issue Date
2015-10-23	D777,622 Patent Priority Date
2016-02-04	D811,954 and D800,615 Patents Priority Date
2016-06-21	D805,964 Patent Priority Date
2016-08-05	D807,241 Patent Priority Date
2016-09-01	D811,964 Patent Priority Date
2017-01-31	D777,622 Patent Issue Date
2017-05-08	D843,025 and D826,114 Patents Priority Date
2017-10-24	D800,615 Patent Issue Date
2017-11-13	D867,939 Patent Priority Date
2017-12-26	D805,964 Patent Issue Date
2018-01-09	D807,241 Patent Issue Date
2018-03-06	D811,954 and D811,964 Patents Issue Date
2018-08-21	D826,114 Patent Issue Date
2019-03-12	D843,025 Patent Issue Date
2019-11-26	D867,939 Patent Issue Date
2022-07	CBP seizes parts from Defendant's facilities
2022-12	Plaintiff provides infringement affidavits to CBP
2023-05-22	Defendant's counsel directed to Plaintiff's virtual patent marking list
2023-06-13	Plaintiff sends formal written notice of infringement to Defendant
2023-11-29	Complaint Filing Date

II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis

U.S. Design Patent No. D670,840 - "Vehicle Head Lamp"

Patent Identification: U.S. Design Patent No. D670,840, titled "Vehicle Head Lamp," issued November 13, 2012. (Compl. ¶26; D’840 Patent).

The Invention Explained

Problem Addressed: The complaint alleges that Plaintiff invests millions of dollars annually to create "innovative and aesthetically beautiful designs" for its vehicles and components to maintain a unique brand identity in the marketplace (Compl. ¶9).
The Patented Solution: The D’840 Patent protects the specific ornamental appearance of a vehicle headlamp, as depicted in its four figures (D’840 Patent, Figs. 1-4). The design is characterized by a swept-back, generally trapezoidal housing with distinctive interior surface contours and overall proportions (D’840 Patent, Fig. 1).
Technical Importance: Unique headlamp designs serve as a critical visual differentiator for vehicle models, contributing significantly to a brand's recognizable "face" and aesthetic appeal (Compl. ¶9, ¶10).

Key Claims at a Glance

Design patents contain a single claim. The asserted claim is for: "The ornamental design for a vehicle head lamp, as shown and described." (D’840 Patent, CLAIM).
The protected design consists of the visual characteristics of the headlamp as depicted in the patent's drawings, including its overall shape, configuration, and surface ornamentation.

U.S. Design Patent No. D843,025 - "Vehicle Front Headlamp"

Patent Identification: U.S. Design Patent No. D843,025, titled "Vehicle Front Headlamp," issued March 12, 2019. (Compl. ¶37; D’025 Patent).

The Invention Explained

Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the ongoing need for new and original ornamental designs for automotive components to distinguish products in a crowded market (Compl. ¶9).
The Patented Solution: The D’025 Patent claims two distinct but related ornamental designs for a vehicle front headlamp, shown across eight figures (D’025 Patent, DESCRIPTION). The claimed design, defined by the solid lines in the drawings, features a complex, angular perimeter and distinct internal lighting modules and bezels, creating a specific visual signature (D’025 Patent, Figs. 1, 5).
Technical Importance: As with the ’840 Patent, this design provides a unique aesthetic for a specific vehicle model, which is a key driver of product differentiation and brand recognition in the automotive industry (Compl. ¶9, ¶10).

Key Claims at a Glance

The asserted claim is for: "The ornamental designs for a vehicle front headlamp, as shown and described." (D’025 Patent, CLAIM).
The protected design encompasses the visual appearance of the headlamp shown in the patent's drawings, limited to the features depicted in solid lines. The use of broken lines disclaims the surrounding environment, focusing the claim on the specific headlamp shape and its internal elements.

U.S. Design Patent D807,241 - "Vehicle Grille"

Patent Identification: D807,241, "Vehicle Grille," issued January 9, 2018 (Compl. ¶48).
Technology Synopsis: The patent protects the ornamental design for a vehicle grille, a key component of a vehicle's front-end appearance.
Asserted Claims: The single claim for the ornamental design as shown and described (D’241 Patent, CLAIM).
Accused Features: Aftermarket grilles for the 2018-2021 Chevrolet Equinox, specifically Part Nos. GM1200760 and GM1200685 (Compl. ¶51, ¶53).

U.S. Design Patent D805,964 - "Vehicle Grille"

Patent Identification: D805,964, "Vehicle Grille," issued December 26, 2017 (Compl. ¶59).
Technology Synopsis: The patent protects the ornamental design for a vehicle grille.
Asserted Claims: The single claim for the ornamental design as shown and described (D’5,964 Patent, CLAIM).
Accused Features: Aftermarket grilles for the 2017-2019 Buick LaCrosse, specifically Part Nos. GM1200749 and ASYA16 (Compl. ¶62, ¶64).

U.S. Design Patent D811,954 - "Radiator Grille of Car"

Patent Identification: D811,954, "Radiator Grille of Car," issued March 6, 2018 (Compl. ¶70).
Technology Synopsis: The patent protects the ornamental design for a vehicle's radiator grille.
Asserted Claims: The single claim for the ornamental design as shown and described (D’954 Patent, CLAIM).
Accused Features: Aftermarket grilles for the 2017-2022 Buick Encore, specifically Part Nos. FZ1109, ASY4127, ASY4128, and ASY4127A (Compl. ¶73, ¶75).

U.S. Design Patent D811,964 - "Vehicle Front Upper Bumper"

Patent Identification: D811,964, "Vehicle Front Upper Bumper," issued March 6, 2018 (Compl. ¶81).
Technology Synopsis: The patent protects the ornamental design for the upper portion of a vehicle's front bumper.
Asserted Claims: The single claim for the ornamental design as shown and described (D’1,964 Patent, CLAIM).
Accused Features: Aftermarket front bumpers for the 2018-2021 Chevrolet Equinox, specifically Part No. GM1014130 (Compl. ¶84, ¶86).

U.S. Design Patent D826,114 - "Vehicle Front Bumper"

Patent Identification: D826,114, "Vehicle Front Bumper," issued August 21, 2018 (Compl. ¶92).
Technology Synopsis: The patent protects the ornamental design for a vehicle's front bumper fascia.
Asserted Claims: The single claim for the ornamental design as shown and described (D’114 Patent, CLAIM).
Accused Features: Aftermarket front fascia for the 2019-2020 Chevrolet Malibu, specifically Part No. GM1000A37 (Compl. ¶95, ¶97).

U.S. Design Patent D800,615 - "Front Bumper of Car"

Patent Identification: D800,615, "Front Bumper of Car," issued October 24, 2017 (Compl. ¶103).
Technology Synopsis: The patent protects the ornamental design for a vehicle's front bumper.
Asserted Claims: The single claim for the ornamental design as shown and described (D’615 Patent, CLAIM).
Accused Features: Aftermarket front fascia for the 2017-2022 Buick Encore, specifically Part Nos. GM1014127, ASY4127A, and ASY4128 (Compl. ¶106, ¶108).

U.S. Design Patent D867,939 - "Vehicle Grille Bezel"

Patent Identification: D867,939, "Vehicle Grille Bezel," issued November 26, 2019 (Compl. ¶114).
Technology Synopsis: The patent protects the ornamental design for a vehicle grille bezel, which is the frame or trim surrounding the grille.
Asserted Claims: The single claim for the ornamental design as shown and described (D’939 Patent, CLAIM).
Accused Features: Aftermarket grille bezels for the 2019 Chevrolet Cruze, specifically Part No. ASYA36CV (Compl. ¶117, ¶119).

U.S. Design Patent D777,622 - "Vehicle Hood"

Patent Identification: D777,622, "Vehicle Hood," issued January 31, 2017 (Compl. ¶125).
Technology Synopsis: The patent protects the ornamental design for a vehicle hood, including its shape and surface contours.
Asserted Claims: The single claim for the ornamental design as shown and described (D’622 Patent, CLAIM).
Accused Features: Aftermarket hoods for the 2016-2019 Chevrolet Cruze, specifically Part No. GM1230443 (Compl. ¶128, ¶130).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The accused instrumentalities are various aftermarket replacement and replica automotive components sold by Defendant, including headlamps, grilles, bumpers, hoods, and fascias (Compl. ¶2, ¶16). Specific part numbers are identified for each asserted patent (e.g., Compl. ¶32, ¶43, ¶54).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges that the accused products are "intended and designed to be substitutable with the GM branded parts" and are presented as "near-identical (if not completely identical) carbon copies in terms of ornamental appearance" (Compl. ¶13). Plaintiff alleges Defendant’s business model is based on copying the patented designs of original equipment manufacturer (OEM) parts to sell lower-cost alternatives (Compl. ¶13, ¶15). The complaint cites to Defendant's website, which allegedly states, "These are the same General Motors (GM) aftermarket auto body parts that your General Motors (GM) collision shop and General Motors (GM) dealership is quoting you for" (Compl. ¶15; Ex. 21, p. 9). This statement, referenced in the complaint as part of Exhibit 21, is presented as visual evidence of Defendant's marketing strategy (Compl. ¶15).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references claim chart exhibits that were not provided with the pleading; therefore, the infringement theory is summarized below in prose.

Plaintiff’s infringement theory rests on the "ordinary observer" test for design patents. For each asserted patent, the complaint alleges that the corresponding accused part is "substantially similar, if not identical, to the designs disclosed" in the patent (Compl. ¶31, ¶42, ¶53). The core allegation is that an ordinary observer would be deceived into believing the accused replacement part is the same as the patented OEM design because of the similarity in appearance. For example, regarding the ’840 Patent, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s aftermarket headlamps for the 2013-2016 Chevrolet Malibu embody a design that is substantially similar to the one claimed in the patent, which is commercially embodied in the headlamp for that same vehicle model (Compl. ¶29, ¶31). A similar narrative is presented for each of the ten asserted patents, linking a specific accused aftermarket part to the corresponding OEM part embodying the patented design (e.g., Compl. ¶40-42 for the ’025 Patent).

Identified Points of Contention

Scope Questions: A central question will be whether the accused parts are "substantially the same" as the patented designs from the perspective of an ordinary observer familiar with the prior art. The analysis will compare the overall visual impression of the accused parts with the specific ornamental features shown in the solid lines of the patent drawings.
Technical Questions: A potential issue for the court is the distinction between ornamental and functional features. The defense may argue that similarities between the accused parts and the patented designs are dictated by the functional necessity of fitting and connecting to the specific vehicle models, rather than by copying protected ornamental designs.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

In design patent cases, claim construction involves providing a verbal description of the claimed design shown in the drawings, rather than defining specific textual terms. The scope of the claim is the design itself.

The Term: "ornamental design for a [vehicle component] as shown and described" (e.g., D’840 Patent, CLAIM; D’025 Patent, CLAIM).
Context and Importance: The construction of this implicit "term" is the entire case. The court’s interpretation will define the visual elements that are protected. Practitioners may focus on this process because the level of detail in the court's verbal description of the drawings will set the standard against which the accused products are compared for infringement. The outcome of the "ordinary observer" test depends entirely on what the "ornamental design" is construed to be.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language "as shown and described" could support an interpretation focused on the overall visual impression and aesthetic appeal of the design, rather than a microscopic comparison of every line and curve. Plaintiff may argue that small differences are irrelevant if the overall appearance is confusingly similar.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specific figures in each patent (e.g., D’840 Patent, Figs. 1-4) provide evidence for a narrower construction limited to the exact shapes, proportions, and surface contours depicted. Defendant may argue that any deviation in its products from these precise visual details is sufficient to avoid infringement. The use of broken lines in some of the patents (e.g., D’025 Patent) explicitly disclaims subject matter and narrows the scope of the claimed design to only what is shown in solid lines.

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement: The complaint does not contain explicit counts for indirect infringement (inducement or contributory infringement). The allegations focus on direct infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a) for making, using, selling, offering to sell, and importing the accused parts (Compl. ¶32, ¶43).
Willful Infringement: The complaint makes detailed allegations of willful infringement for each asserted patent (e.g., Compl. ¶33, ¶35, ¶44, ¶46). The basis for willfulness includes alleged pre-suit knowledge of infringement stemming from a July 2022 CBP seizure of accused products, Plaintiff’s subsequent infringement determination provided to CBP in December 2022, and formal written notice letters sent to Defendant in 2023 (Compl. ¶18-23). The complaint alleges that Defendant’s continued infringement after these events constitutes a deliberate disregard of a high likelihood of infringement.

VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case

A central issue will be one of visual identity: Under the "ordinary observer" test, are the accused aftermarket parts substantially the same in their overall ornamental appearance as the designs claimed in Plaintiff's ten patents? The resolution will depend on a side-by-side comparison and an analysis of what constitutes the core aesthetic of each patented design.
A key factual question will relate to willfulness and intent: What did the Defendant know about Plaintiff's patents and when did they know it? The extensive pre-suit history alleged in the complaint, including interactions with CBP and direct notice from Plaintiff, will be critical in determining whether any infringement was willful, which could lead to enhanced damages or an award of the infringer's total profits.
The case may also turn on the functionality defense: To what degree are the shapes and features of the accused parts dictated by their function—namely, to fit onto a specific GM vehicle? The court will need to determine where the unprotectable functional requirements end and the protected ornamental design begins.