Patent exhaustion provides that the first unrestricted sale by a patent owner of a patented product exhausts the patent owner's control over that particular item. This "well-established" rule, dubbed exhaustion, "marks the point where patent rights yield to the common law principle against restraints on alienation." Impression Prods., Inc. Second, the ABPA argued that the patents were unenforceable under the doctrines of exhaustion and repair. The Federal Circuit also declined the ABPA's request to extend the trademark principle of aesthetic functionality from trademark law to design patents. The Federal Circuit rejected this argument, noting that not only did the ABPA lack support for their statement regarding the intent of the consumer, aesthetic appeal of a design to consumers is inadequate to render that design functional. The ABPA argued that because consumers seeking replacement parts seek to restore the original appearance of their vehicles, there is a functional benefit to designs that are aesthetically compatible with the vehicles. The Federal Circuit has previously held that an "ornamental design" cannot be "primarily functional." Sport Dimension, Inc. Section 171 of Title 35 authorizes design patents claiming "new, original and ornamental design for an article of manufacture." 35 U.S.C. First, it argued the patents were functional and therefore invalid. On appeal, the ABPA advanced two main arguments.
The ABPA appealed the decision to the Federal Circuit. In response, Judge Michelson, sua sponte, granted summary judgment in Ford's favor. The ABPA describes itself as a 160-member "coalition dedicated to serving the collision repair industry with quality replacement parts, backed by dependable service and fair prices." The ABPA eventually moved for summary judgment, arguing that Ford's patents were both functional and exhausted, and therefore, invalid as a matter of law. This case began in the Eastern District of Michigan when the Automotive Body Parts Association ("ABPA") sued Ford Global Technologies, LLC ("Ford") seeking a declaratory judgment of invalidity or unenforceability of two design patents. The Federal Circuit issued a precedential opinionon July 23, 2019, affirming the validity of two design patents related to the Ford F-150 hood and headlamp and sweepingly rejecting arguments that the patents on automotive repair and replacement parts are invalid and unenforceable. Real Estate Acquisition and Disposition.K-12 Education Finance and Election Law.Distressed Municipalities and Debt Restructuring.Real Estate and Construction Litigation.
Car body design patent professional#
Diversity, Equity and Inclusion Consulting.Corporate, Securities and Commercial Transactions.International and Cross-Border Insolvency.Distressed Transactions and Bankruptcy Sales.Bankruptcy, Restructuring and Insolvency.