PTAB

PGR2020-00021

LKQ Corp v. GM Global Technology Operations LLC

Key Events

Petition

petition

Title: Vehicle Grille Bezel
Brief Description: The ’903 patent relates to the ornamental design for a vehicle grille bezel. The claimed design consists of a frame with a substantially horizontal top portion and a U-shaped bottom portion, which are connected at each end by short, downward-angled diagonal sections.

Prior Art Relied Upon: N/A (Legal Doctrine Ground)
Core Argument for this Ground:
- Petitioner argued that the ’903 patent is invalid because it claims an ornamental design for a "partial-product"—a functionless component part of a larger, functional article (a vehicle). This practice, Petitioner contended, violates the well-established patent exhaustion doctrine and the consumer's right to repair their own property. By patenting individual replacement parts, an Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEM) can impermissibly subvert the competitive aftermarket for repair parts. This effectively forces consumers to compensate the patent owner a second time for the right to use a design for which they already paid through the initial vehicle purchase, undermining fundamental principles of property rights.

Prior Art Relied Upon: Patent D852,099 (’099 patent)
Core Argument for this Ground:
- Petitioner contended the claim of the ’903 patent is invalid for same-invention double patenting over the ’099 patent, which is also assigned to the Patent Owner. The petition asserted that under the one-way test for double patenting, the claims are directed to identical subject matter because one patent could not be literally infringed without infringing the other. Petitioner provided side-by-side visual comparisons to demonstrate that when disregarding the unclaimed portions shown in broken lines, the claimed ornamental designs of the grille bezel outlines in the ’903 patent and the ’099 patent are identical.

Prior Art Relied Upon: The 2014 Buick Enclave (a publicly available vehicle design) and the 2013 Buick Regal (a publicly available vehicle design).
Core Argument for this Ground:
- Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that the 2014 Buick Enclave is a proper primary reference because its grille bezel design creates basically the same visual impression as the claimed design. It allegedly shares key features including the overall shape, a substantially horizontal top portion ending in downward-pointing diagonal segments, a U-shaped bottom portion, and a convex horizontal curve. The single notable difference was identified as the ’903 patent's softer, more rounded minimum at the centerline of the U-shaped bottom; Petitioner argued this specific feature was explicitly disclosed by the grille bezel design of the 2013 Buick Regal.
- Motivation to Combine: A designer of ordinary skill would combine these known features as part of the natural evolution of the Buick brand's established design language. Modifying the sharper minimum of the Enclave with the softer minimum from the Regal was presented as a predictable, minor aesthetic modification to create a more refined and contemporary appearance.
- Expectation of Success: A designer would have a high expectation of success in making this minor modification, as it involved combining existing design elements from closely related vehicles within the same brand.

Prior Art Relied Upon: The 2013 Buick Regal (a publicly available vehicle design) and the 2013 Buick Enclave (a publicly available vehicle design).
Core Argument for this Ground:
- Prior Art Mapping: In an alternative ground, Petitioner argued the 2013 Buick Regal serves as a proper primary reference, sharing the overall shape, horizontal top, U-shaped bottom, and convex curvature of the claimed design. The primary difference identified was that the 2013 Regal's top portion connects directly to the U-shaped bottom, whereas the ’903 patent's design includes short, downward-pointing diagonal bezel segments at each end. This missing design element, Petitioner asserted, is readily supplied by the design of the 2013 Buick Enclave, which clearly shows these intervening diagonal segments.
- Motivation to Combine: The motivation asserted was that a designer seeking to evolve the 2013 Regal design would naturally look to a similar model from the same brand and year—the 2013 Buick Enclave—to incorporate a known design element. Adding the diagonal segments would be a simple way to achieve a slightly different but aesthetically consistent look within the brand's established design vocabulary.
- Expectation of Success: The combination was a simple substitution of known design elements between two highly related products, leading to a predictable result with a high expectation of success.

Petitioner proposed construing the claimed design using a detailed verbal description to supplement the visual figures. This construction identified the key ornamental features for comparison against the prior art, describing the design as a vehicle grille bezel comprising: a "substantially horizontal top portion terminating in a short, downward-pointing diagonal bezel segment at each end"; a "substantially u-shaped bottom portion" with a minimum at the centerline; and a convex horizontal curve where the bottom portion is forward of the top portion. This verbal construction was central to Petitioner's mapping arguments for its obviousness grounds.

Petitioner requested institution of Post Grant Review and cancellation of the single claim of the ’903 patent as unpatentable.