PTAB

PGR2020-00054

LKQ Corp v. GM Global Technology Operations LLC

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Vehicle Fender
  • Brief Description: The ’065 patent claims the ornamental design for a vehicle fender. The design features a contoured surface with a rearward protrusion, a concave inflection line defining the upper portion, a convex crease parallel to the inflection line, a distinct front portion, and an arcuate wheel arch.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Indefiniteness - The Claim is Unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 112

  • Core Argument: Petitioner argued that the single claim of the ’065 patent is indefinite because multiple, irreconcilable inconsistencies across the four patent figures prevent an ordinary observer from understanding the scope of the claimed design with reasonable certainty. Key alleged inconsistencies include:
    • A double line representing a convex crease is visible in Figure 1 but absent from Figures 2-4.
    • The contour of the upper portion where it meets the rear protrusion appears convex in Figure 1, flat in Figures 2 and 3, and simultaneously concave and convex in Figure 4.
    • The length and curvature of the concave inflection line are inconsistent across the different views.
    • The point of maximum concavity of the fender is depicted in different locations across Figures 1, 2, 3, and 4.
    • The wheel arch appears substantially convex in Figures 1 and 3, flat or slightly convex in Figure 2, and both convex and concave in Figure 4.
    • Figure 2 appears to claim a portion of the rear edge of a mounting plate with a solid line, while the remainder of the mounting plate is disclaimed in other figures with broken lines, an issue previously raised during prosecution.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Fiat Toro and Horki Concept - The Claim is obvious over the 2016 Fiat Toro in view of the 2013 Horki Concept

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: 2016 Fiat Toro (a 2016 production vehicle and associated Car Body Design article) and 2013 Horki Concept (a 2013 concept vehicle and associated China Auto Web article).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner asserted that the 2016 Fiat Toro is an appropriate primary reference because its fender design creates basically the same overall visual impression as the claimed design. Both designs allegedly share a concave inflection line, a similarly shaped upper protrusion, a convex crease extending parallel to the inflection line, and a similarly contoured front and rear edge. The minor differences, such as a "bone line" on the Toro's front portion and a less arcuate wheel arch, are taught by the secondary reference.
    • Motivation to Combine: A designer of ordinary skill in the art (DOSA) would combine the teachings of the Horki Concept with the Fiat Toro design because the vehicles are so related, sharing similar protrusions and fender panel designs. The Horki Concept teaches the specific features that differ between the Toro and the ’065 patent, including a front portion without a "bone line" and a more arcuate, conventional wheel arch. A DOSA would be motivated to incorporate these features to refine the Toro's unconventional design, improve its marketability, and make it more evocative of luxury vehicles.
    • Expectation of Success: A DOSA would have a reasonable expectation of success in making these modifications, as they involved combining known design elements from similar articles to achieve a more refined and broadly appealing aesthetic.

Ground 3: Obviousness over Fiat Toro, Cadillac XT5, and Lan - The Claim is obvious over the 2016 Fiat Toro in view of the 2017 Cadillac XT5 and Lan

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: 2016 Fiat Toro (a 2016 production vehicle), 2017 Cadillac XT5 (a 2017 production vehicle), and Lan (Patent D800,605).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: The 2016 Fiat Toro again served as the primary reference. Petitioner argued the secondary references teach the remaining design elements. The 2017 Cadillac XT5 allegedly teaches the precise curvature of the front upper edge of the fender claimed in the ’065 patent. The Lan patent teaches the specific arcuate shape, tapering, and soft bevel transition of the wheel arch flat.
    • Motivation to Combine: A DOSA would be motivated to modify the Toro's front edge to match the curvature taught by the XT5 to accommodate a more conventionally proportioned headlamp. This modification would also motivate the removal of the Toro's "bone line" to create a smoother, more fluid appearance. Further, a DOSA would incorporate the wheel arch design from Lan, which is nearly identical to the claimed design's arch, to align the Toro's fender with luxury vehicle design trends and broaden its market appeal.
    • Expectation of Success: The combination involved applying specific, known design features from closely related vehicles (SUVs/crossovers) to an already very similar base design, ensuring a high expectation of success.
  • Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted an additional ground that the ’065 patent is invalid as a "partial-product" patent that violates the doctrine of patent exhaustion and the customer's right to repair.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • Petitioner provided a detailed verbal construction of the claimed design to identify its key ornamental features for comparison against the prior art. The construction breaks the design into several distinct elements:
    • An inflection line demarcating a concave contour at an approximate 15° angle.
    • An upper portion above the inflection line, featuring a rearwardly and upwardly extending protrusion and a top edge with specific slopes and curves.
    • A convex crease extending parallel to the inflection line for approximately 30% of the fender's length.
    • A front portion with a convexly contoured surface and a specific S-curved upper edge.
    • An arcuate wheel arch flat describing an arc of approximately 120° and tapering toward the rear.
    • A rear edge with a specific convex contour and vertical segments that merge into the upper portion.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requested that the Board institute a post-grant review and cancel the single claim of the ’065 patent as unpatentable due to indefiniteness under 35 U.S.C. § 112 and/or obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103.