PTAB

PGR2020-00020

LKQ Corp v. GM Global Technology Operations LLC

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Vehicle Grille Bezel
  • Brief Description: The ’099 patent claims the ornamental design for a vehicle grille bezel, specifically the outer frame of a front grille. The scope of the design is defined by the solid lines in the patent’s five figures, which disclaim the inner grille mesh and other surrounding vehicle components shown in broken lines.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Invalidity Based on Patent Exhaustion and Right to Repair

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Not applicable. This ground was based on legal doctrine rather than prior art.
  • Core Argument: Petitioner argued that the ’099 patent was invalid because it claims a design for a single, non-functional component part of a larger, functional article (a vehicle), rather than a complete "article of manufacture" as originally intended by 35 U.S.C. §171. Petitioner contended this practice improperly subverts the patent exhaustion doctrine, which dictates that a patentee’s rights are exhausted after the initial authorized sale of an article. By patenting individual repair parts, the Patent Owner allegedly extends its monopoly beyond the sale of the whole vehicle, undermining the consumer's right to repair their property and stifling competition in the aftermarket parts industry, contrary to the principles established in cases such as Aro Mfg. Co. v. Convertible Top Replacement Co. and Impression Prod., Inc. v. Lexmark Int'l, Inc.

Ground 2: The claim is obvious over the 2014 Buick Enclave in view of the 2013 Buick Regal.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Patent Owner's 2014 Buick Enclave (primary reference) and Patent Owner's 2013 Buick Regal (secondary reference).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner asserted that the 2014 Buick Enclave is a proper primary reference under Durling v. Spectrum Furniture Co. because its grille bezel design creates basically the same overall visual impression as the claimed design. Petitioner mapped the key features of its proposed claim construction to the Enclave's design, arguing it disclosed a horizontal top portion, a u-shaped bottom portion, and a horizontally convex curvature. The only significant difference identified was that the Enclave’s centerline minimum (the dip in the bottom bezel) is slightly sharper than the softened minimum of the claimed design.
    • Motivation to Combine: The 2013 Buick Regal was presented as teaching the single missing feature: a softer, less pronounced centerline minimum. Petitioner argued a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would combine the references because they are "so related"—both being GM-owned Buick models from successive years with similar grille bezel designs. The motivation would be to slightly modify the design as part of the natural evolution of the Buick brand's aesthetic to create a softer overall appearance.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have had a high expectation of success in making such a minor modification, as it was a predictable change within an established design language.

Ground 3: The claim is obvious over the 2013 Buick Regal in view of the 2013 Buick Enclave.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Patent Owner's 2013 Buick Regal (primary reference) and Patent Owner's 2013 Buick Enclave (secondary reference).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: In this alternative ground, Petitioner asserted that the 2013 Buick Regal served as the primary reference, creating a visual impression basically the same as the claimed design. It was argued to share the overall shape, u-shaped bottom portion, and convex curvature. The primary difference identified was that the 2013 Regal's horizontal top portion connects directly to the u-shaped bottom portion, lacking the short, downward-pointing diagonal bezel segments at each end that are present in the ’099 patent.
    • Motivation to Combine: The 2013 Buick Enclave was offered as the secondary reference that readily supplied the missing diagonal segments. Petitioner argued a POSITA would be motivated to combine these features because the references are "so related"—both being Buick models from the same year that share many similar design features. The motivation would be to integrate a known design element to create a more traditional appearance, consistent with GM's broader design language.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have expected success in applying a common design feature from one Buick model to another from the same model year to achieve a desired aesthetic.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • Petitioner asserted that while a design is best represented by its illustrations, a verbal construction is helpful for analysis. It proposed that the claimed design consists of the portions shown in solid lines, which can be described by four key features that contribute to the overall visual impression:
    • A substantially horizontal top portion that terminates at each end in a short, downward-pointing diagonal bezel segment.
    • A substantially u-shaped bottom portion that extends between the two diagonal segments.
    • The u-shaped bottom portion includes a minimum, or dip, at the centerline of the bezel.
    • The entire bezel is horizontally convexly curved, with the bottom of the u-shaped portion being forward of the horizontal top portion.
  • This construction was foundational to Petitioner's mapping of the prior art references in its obviousness arguments.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requested the Board institute a Post Grant Review and subsequently find the single claim of U.S. Design Patent No. D852,099 unpatentable and canceled.