{"id":64,"date":"2020-04-13T10:39:10","date_gmt":"2020-04-13T14:39:10","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/transportation\/?p=64"},"modified":"2020-04-16T12:07:58","modified_gmt":"2020-04-16T16:07:58","slug":"u-s-supreme-court-refuses-to-revisit-decision-upholding-design-patent-validity-for-automotive-repair-parts","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/transportation\/2020\/04\/13\/u-s-supreme-court-refuses-to-revisit-decision-upholding-design-patent-validity-for-automotive-repair-parts\/","title":{"rendered":"U.S. Supreme Court Refuses to Revisit Decision Upholding Design Patent Validity for Automotive Repair Parts"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>By <a href=\"https:\/\/www.duanemorris.com\/attorneys\/johnemunro.html\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\">John E. Munro<\/a><\/p>\n<p>The United States Supreme Court refused to take up a request to revisit the Federal Circuit\u2019s decision regarding design patents covering automotive repair parts. The Supreme Court\u2019s denial to revisit the decision keeps the long-standing principles of functionality with regards to design patents unchanged. The decision stands, however, as a reminder of the importance and usefulness of design patents to protect repair parts in industries that have significant commercial interests in preventing third-parties from copying designs of repair parts. <!--more--><\/p>\n<p>In this case, the Automotive Body Parts Association (ABPA) filed a declaratory judgment action in the Eastern District of Michigan (case no. 2:15-cv-10137) seeking the invalidation of multiple design patents covering aspects of Ford Motor Company\u2019s popular F-150 pick-up truck. Among the bases for the invalidation, the ABPA argued that Ford\u2019s design patents covering repair parts were \u201cfunctional\u201d because the parts aesthetically matched the appearance of Ford\u2019s vehicle. The District Court granted summary judgment in Ford\u2019s favor and the ABPA appealed the decision to the Federal Circuit (case no. 18-1613).<\/p>\n<p>On appeal, the Federal Circuit affirmed the decision and in no uncertain terms maintained the principles of design patents, namely, to protect the aesthetic appearance of products that may have functional purposes or functional aspects. The decision of the Federal Circuit, that stands unchanged in light of the Supreme Court\u2019s refusal to revisit the decision, is a reminder of the importance of design patents as an additional tool to prevent the copying of a design owner\u2019s designs. Indeed, design patents can provide significant protections for repair or maintenance parts that often provide continuing commercial value to original equipment manufacturers.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>By John E. Munro The United States Supreme Court refused to take up a request to revisit the Federal Circuit\u2019s decision regarding design patents covering automotive repair parts. The Supreme Court\u2019s denial to revisit the decision keeps the long-standing principles of functionality with regards to design patents unchanged. The decision stands, however, as a reminder &hellip; <\/p>\n<p class=\"link-more\"><a href=\"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/transportation\/2020\/04\/13\/u-s-supreme-court-refuses-to-revisit-decision-upholding-design-patent-validity-for-automotive-repair-parts\/\" class=\"more-link\">Continue reading<span class=\"screen-reader-text\"> &#8220;U.S. Supreme Court Refuses to Revisit Decision Upholding Design Patent Validity for Automotive Repair Parts&#8221;<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":6,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[2],"tags":[9,15,14,12,13],"ppma_author":[51],"class_list":["post-64","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-general","tag-automotive","tag-automotive-parts","tag-design-patents","tag-john-munro","tag-patents"],"authors":[{"term_id":51,"user_id":6,"is_guest":0,"slug":"duanemorris3","display_name":"Duane Morris","avatar_url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/843ff6e7a8fe5fc92109b47a45f34b6cf0ea499e6e788db23456c838b0ae6747?s=96&d=blank&r=g","0":null,"1":"","2":"","3":"","4":"","5":"","6":"","7":"","8":""}],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/transportation\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/64","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/transportation\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/transportation\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/transportation\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/6"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/transportation\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=64"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/transportation\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/64\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/transportation\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=64"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/transportation\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=64"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/transportation\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=64"},{"taxonomy":"author","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/transportation\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/ppma_author?post=64"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}