Insights: Publications Automotive Design Patents: Best Protection Strategies
The U.S. is the world’s second-largest market for vehicle sales and production. To stay competitive in this multibillion-dollar industry, automotive manufacturers must strategically obtain valid and enforceable design patents against other infringing car manufacturers and companies that create toys and replicas of their big-ticket investments. To accomplish this, car manufacturers often claim various articles of manufacture, using combinations of the terms “replica,” “toy,” “model,” as well as “vehicle.”1 Other times, these same companies use only the term “vehicle.”2 Not surprisingly, the PTO tends to examine these claims differently, depending on the specific language submitted. As one might expect, some design patents that claim to be both a “vehicle” and a “toy” are examined using art from both the vehicle category (D12) and the toy category (D21)3. However, other claims that include “toy” or “replica,” which do not cite any art from the “toy” category, only list the “vehicle” category (D12) as the field of search4. As a result, some patents claiming multiple articles of manufacture are only being examined as if they claimed one, giving these manufacturers all the benefits of two or more articles, with none of the additional burden of prosecuting them.
Based on current case law — which narrows design patent infringement to only the claimed article of manufacture — it seems that car manufacturers that cite several article groups at once optimize their design patent claims, while those that only claim a “vehicle” forfeit their ability to bring suit against toy manufacturers that replicate their designs. However, it is also possible that many of these design patents may be invalid since an examination of all of the article groups may uncover damaging prior art. That said, as long as the patent office continues to allow such claims, there seems to be a strong advantage to continuing to claim multiple articles of manufacture.
Lastly, clients wishing to protect their design from uses in models, replicas, and toys via claiming multiple articles of manufacture should do so cautiously. As long as the examiners allow it, this practice brings clear benefits in enforcement. A word of warning though. Since restriction requirements governing multiple patent claims fall under the discretion of the patent examiners, applicants should be careful not to claim too much up front. If an applicant tries to claim a large group of articles or otherwise seems to overplay its hand, an examiner can restrict the article of manufacture and force the applicant to narrow the claim, which may result in applying prosecution history estoppel and imposing litigation consequences if applicable.
For more information, please contact Kilpatrick Townsend Intellectual Property Partner and Co-Chair of the multidiscipline Retail & Consumer Group Babak Kusha at 415.273.7512 | firstname.lastname@example.org.
*Written with research assistance from Tim Tran and Michael Thomas
3See, e.g., U.S. Patent Des. 449,254 (A toy vehicle (U.S. Patent Des. 366,295) was cited as art for the Porsche GT design patent).
4See, e.g., U.S. Patent Des. 473,165 (Rolls-Royce).
While we are pleased to have you contact us by telephone, surface mail, electronic mail, or by facsimile transmission, contacting Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP or any of its attorneys does not create an attorney-client relationship. The formation of an attorney-client relationship requires consideration of multiple factors, including possible conflicts of interest. An attorney-client relationship is formed only when both you and the Firm have agreed to proceed with a defined engagement.
DO NOT CONVEY TO US ANY INFORMATION YOU REGARD AS CONFIDENTIAL UNTIL A FORMAL CLIENT-ATTORNEY RELATIONSHIP HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED.
If you do convey information, you recognize that we may review and disclose the information, and you agree that even if you regard the information as highly confidential and even if it is transmitted in a good faith effort to retain us, such a review does not preclude us from representing another client directly adverse to you, even in a matter where that information could be used against you.