General Motors LLC v. LKQ Corp

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: General Motors LLC and GM Global Technology Operations LLC (Delaware)
  • Defendant: LKQ Corporation, CCC Intelligent Solutions Holdings Inc., and numerous other domestic distributors and foreign manufacturers (various jurisdictions)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Fish & Richardson P.C.
• Case Identification: General Motors LLC v. LKQ Corporation, 1:26-cv-01233, N.D. Ill., 02/03/2026
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper for key U.S. defendants based on their having regular and established places of business and having sold accused products within the Northern District of Illinois. For foreign manufacturing defendants, venue is asserted under federal statute governing foreign defendants.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiffs allege that a coalition of foreign manufacturers, U.S. distributors, and a sales platform operator are engaging in the widespread manufacturing, importation, and sale of aftermarket automotive components that infringe twenty of GM's U.S. design patents.
• Technical Context: The dispute centers on the ornamental appearance of replacement vehicle body parts in the automotive aftermarket industry, where aesthetic fidelity to the original manufacturer's parts is a key market driver.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that some of the asserted patents are also the subject of separate litigation against Defendant LKQ. It also alleges that multiple defendants have obtained certification from the Certified Automotive Parts Association (CAPA) for the accused products, which Plaintiffs frame as an admission that the parts are "substantially the same" as the patented GM parts.

Case Timeline

II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis

U.S. Design Patent No. D749,997 - Vehicle Rear Bumper, Issued Feb. 23, 2016

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The complaint suggests that GM invests significantly in creating unique and aesthetically pleasing vehicle designs to distinguish its products in a competitive market Compl. ¶¶27-28 Design patents protect the specific ornamental results of this investment from being copied Compl. ¶2
• The Patented Solution: The '997 Patent protects the specific ornamental appearance of a vehicle rear bumper, as depicted in the patent's figures '997 Patent, Figs. 1-4 The claimed design is characterized by its overall shape, including distinctive integrated steps at the corners of the bumper and a recessed central portion '997 Patent, description '997 Patent, Fig. 1 The claim protects the visual impression of the article as a whole, as shown in the solid-line drawings '997 Patent, claim
• Technical Importance: This bumper design, with its integrated corner step, became a signature feature on popular GM truck models, contributing to their unique brand identity and providing a novel aesthetic in the full-size truck market Compl. ¶31

Key Claims at a Glance

• Design patents contain a single claim. The asserted claim is for "The ornamental design for a vehicle rear bumper, as shown and described" '997 Patent, claim
• This claim covers the collective visual appearance of the bumper shown in solid lines in Figures 1-4, which includes:
  • The overall configuration of the bumper.
  • The shape and placement of the corner steps.
  • The contours of the central recessed area.

U.S. Design Patent No. D792,815 - Vehicle Front Bumper, Issued Jul. 25, 2017

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: As with the '997 Patent, the underlying challenge is to create a non-obvious, ornamental design for a vehicle component that enhances the vehicle's unique aesthetic and brand identity Compl. ¶¶27-28
• The Patented Solution: The '815 Patent protects the specific visual appearance of a vehicle front bumper '815 Patent, claim The figures illustrate a design with a distinct overall curvature, specific recessed areas, and defined openings that create a particular visual impression '815 Patent, Figs. 1-4 The protection is for the design as a whole, shown in the solid lines of the drawings '815 Patent, description
• Technical Importance: The design contributes to the signature "look" of certain GM vehicles, which is a key differentiator for consumers and a significant area of investment for the company Compl. ¶¶27, 31

Key Claims at a Glance

• The single asserted claim is for "The ornamental design for a vehicle front bumper, as shown and described" '815 Patent, claim
• The claim encompasses the visual appearance of the bumper shown in solid lines, which includes elements such as:
  • The specific curvature and profile of the bumper.
  • The shape, size, and location of the central and side openings.
  • The surface contours and character lines across the fascia.

U.S. Design Patent No. D792,816 - Vehicle Front Bumper, Issued Jul. 25, 2017

• Technology Synopsis: The '816 Patent protects the ornamental design for a vehicle front bumper. The design is visually distinct from the '815 patent, featuring different contours and opening shapes, illustrating a variation in GM's design portfolio for front bumpers '816 Patent, Figs. 1-4
• Asserted Claims: The single claim is for "The ornamental design for a vehicle front bumper, as shown and described" '816 Patent, claim
• Accused Features: The complaint accuses aftermarket part number GM1002869C, allegedly manufactured by Auto Power, of infringing the '816 Patent's design Compl. ¶¶65-68

U.S. Design Patent No. D793,301 - Automobile Front Lower Fascia, Issued Aug. 1, 2017

• Technology Synopsis: The '301 Patent protects the ornamental design for the lower fascia portion of an automobile's front bumper. The drawings show a specific arrangement of contours and openings intended for the lower section of a vehicle's front end '301 Patent, Figs. 1-4
• Asserted Claims: The single claim is for "The ornamental design for an automobile front lower fascia, as shown and described" '301 Patent, claim
• Accused Features: The complaint accuses aftermarket part number GM1015135PP, allegedly manufactured by Pro Fortune and Tong Yang, of infringing the design Compl. ¶¶74-76

For the sake of brevity, the remaining 16 patents-in-suit, which cover ornamental designs for vehicle hoods, fenders, headlamps, and other bumper/fascia components, are not individually detailed here. Each is asserted in a similar manner, with the complaint alleging that a corresponding aftermarket part is "substantially similar" to the respective patented design Compl. ¶¶80-208

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The accused instrumentalities are a range of aftermarket automotive replacement parts, including bumpers, fenders, hoods, and headlamps Compl. ¶33 The complaint identifies specific exemplary products by their industry part numbers, such as "GM1103180DSC" (a rear bumper) and "GM1002861DSC" (a front bumper) Compl. ¶¶48, 56

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges these parts are manufactured by the "Manufacturing Defendants" (primarily based in Taiwan), imported, and then sold and distributed in the U.S. by defendants like LKQ Compl. ¶33 The parts are marketed as direct, form-fit replacements for "GM Genuine Parts" and are designed to "match the ornamental appearance of genuine OEM components" Compl. ¶34 A key allegation is that many of these parts have obtained certification from the Certified Automotive Parts Association (CAPA), which GM contends serves as evidence of their substantial similarity to the patented GM parts Compl. ¶44 The parts are sold to end-users and auto repair shops through distribution networks, including an online purchasing platform provided by Defendant CCC Compl. ¶33

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that the accused aftermarket parts directly infringe the asserted design patents under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a) because, "in the eye of an ordinary observer, giving such attention as a purchaser usually gives, the design of the Accused Products is substantially the same as the designs embodied in the Asserted Patents" Compl. ¶36 This language directly tracks the legal standard for design patent infringement established in Egyptian Goddess, Inc. v. Swisa, Inc. For each of the twenty patents-in-suit, the complaint references a corresponding claim chart, attached as Exhibits 21-40, which purportedly demonstrates this substantial similarity (e.g., Compl. ¶50; Compl. ¶59). As these exhibits were not included with the complaint, a detailed element-by-element comparison is not possible from the pleading alone.

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Substantial Similarity: The central factual question for the court will be whether the accused products are "substantially the same" as the patented designs. This will involve a visual comparison of the products and the patent figures. Defendants may argue that differences in the designs, while perhaps subtle, are significant enough to be distinguished by an ordinary observer familiar with the prior art.
  • Scope of Protection (Functionality): A likely point of legal and factual dispute will be the extent to which the claimed designs are dictated by function. Defendants may argue that certain features (e.g., the overall shape required to fit a specific vehicle model, the basic utility of a step in a bumper) are functional and therefore should be excluded from the infringement analysis. The court's determination of which elements are ornamental versus functional will be critical in defining the scope of GM's patent rights.
  • The Role of Prior Art: The "ordinary observer" test is performed in the context of the prior art. Defendants will likely introduce prior art designs to argue that the scope of GM's patents is narrow and limited to the specific novel features not found in earlier designs. They would then argue their products do not copy those specific novel features.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

In design patent litigation, formal claim construction of written terms is rare, as the claim is primarily defined by the drawings. The analysis instead focuses on the visual scope of the design as a whole. However, a central issue that functions like claim construction is determining the boundary between protected ornamental features and unprotected functional elements.

• The Term: "The ornamental design for a [vehicle component], as shown and described" (e.g., '997 Patent, claim; '815 Patent, claim).
• Context and Importance: The core of the dispute will be defining what aspects of the "design as shown" are legally protectable "ornamental" features. Practitioners may focus on this issue because if key aspects of the designs are found to be primarily functional, they are removed from the infringement analysis, narrowing the scope of the patent and making it easier for the defendants to prove non-infringement.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation (Favoring Patentee): GM may argue that while the components serve a function, the specific way they are shaped and appear is a matter of aesthetic choice. The existence of numerous alternative designs in the market for the same component (as evidenced by the many patents-in-suit for front bumpers) could be used to suggest that the specific claimed design is not dictated by function. The solid lines in the patent drawings represent GM's claim to the entire visible shape, which is presumptively ornamental '997 Patent, Figs. 1-4
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation (Favoring Accused Infringer): Defendants may argue that certain features are purely functional. For example, regarding the '997 Patent, they might argue that a step in a truck bumper is a well-known functional feature. They could contend that only the most minor, non-utilitarian surface styling is ornamental. The broken lines in the patent figures, which disclaim the surrounding vehicle structure, show an intent to claim the part in its functional context, potentially opening the door to arguments that the claimed shape is constrained by that context '997 Patent, description '997 Patent, Fig. 1

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

The complaint alleges both induced and contributory infringement under 35 U.S.C. §§ 271(b) and 271(c).

• Inducement: The allegations state that distributors like LKQ induce infringement by "encouraging repair shops and end users" to use the infringing parts Compl. ¶37, that CCC induces by providing the software platform for their sale Compl. ¶38, and that the Manufacturing Defendants induce by supplying the parts to distributors for import and sale in the U.S. Compl. ¶39
• Contributory Infringement: The complaint alleges that defendants contribute to infringement by selling components of the accused products, knowing they are material parts of the patented design, are especially made for use in the infringement, and have no substantial non-infringing use Compl. ¶¶41-43 An illustrative example provided is the separate sale of a step pad for a bumper Compl. ¶40

Willful Infringement

The complaint includes allegations of willful infringement for each asserted patent. The basis for this claim is the allegation that defendants "disregarded an objectively high likelihood of infringement" (e.g., Compl. ¶52). Critically, the complaint alleges pre-suit knowledge of the patents, stating that GM complied with the marking statute by listing the patents-in-suit on a public website, thereby providing constructive notice to the defendants Compl. ¶32

VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case

• A core question will be one of visual similarity: From the perspective of an ordinary observer familiar with prior art vehicle designs, are the accused aftermarket parts "substantially the same" as the designs claimed in GM's patents, or are the differences sufficient to avoid infringement?
• A dispositive legal issue will be one of scope definition: To what extent are the claimed features of GM's designs—such as the corner step in a bumper or the overall contours of a fender—dictated by function versus ornamental choice? The court's ruling on the functionality of these elements will determine the scope of what is legally protected and compared in the infringement test.
• A key question for damages will be one of willfulness and remedy: Can GM prove that defendants had pre-suit knowledge of the patents, leading to a finding of willful infringement and potential enhanced damages? Furthermore, will damages be based on a reasonable royalty, or will GM successfully pursue the infringer's total profits under 35 U.S.C. § 289, a powerful remedy unique to design patent cases?