PARTS Act Could Limit Automotive Design Patent Enforceability to 2.5 Years

09 May 2013 Dashboard Insights Blog

On April 23, 2013, H.R. 1663[1] “Promoting Automotive Repair, Trade, and Sales Act of 2013’’ or the ‘‘PARTS Act’’, was referred to the House Judiciary Committee. Similar bill H.R. 3889[2] died in committee last year. The proposed bill is intended to reduce the cost of replacement parts to collision shops by limiting the period of time in which a design patent covering an original equipment automotive part could be enforced. The proposed bill would amend 35 USC § 271(j)(1) to provide:

(j)(1) With respect to a design patent that claims a component part of a motor vehicle as originally manufactured–

(A) it shall not be an act of infringement of such design patent to make or offer to sell within the United States, or import into the United States, any article of manufacture that is similar or the same in appearance to the component part that is claimed in such design patent if the purpose of such article of manufacture is for the repair of a motor vehicle so as to restore such vehicle to its appearance as originally manufactured; and

(B) after the expiration of a period of 30 months beginning on the first day on which any such component part is first offered to the public for sale as part of a motor vehicle in any country, it shall not be an act of infringement of such design patent to use or sell within the United States any article of manufacture that is similar or the same in appearance to the component part that is claimed in such design patent if the purpose of such article of manufacture is for the repair of a motor vehicle so as to restore such vehicle to its appearance as originally manufactured.

(2)(A) For purposes of this subsection the term ‘component part’

(i) means a component part of the exterior of a motor vehicle only, such as a hood, fender, tail light, side mirror, or quarter panel; and

(ii) does not include an inflatable restraint system or other component part located in the interior of a motor vehicle;

The bill includes language that defines the term “make” to include testing and that defines the term “offer to sell” to include marketing and pre-sale distribution. Thus, a competitor may manufacture, test, offer to sell, and distribute a replacement automotive part at any time, and immediately sell the replacement part on the 2.5 year anniversary of the first sale of the part, so long as the part is only covered by a design patent and not a utility patent.

Section (2)(A) was added to the bill since last year, thereby limiting the scope of the bill to a “component part of the exterior of a motor vehicle only.” However, the scope of this section is unclear. For example, would rims and tires would be covered by the bill?

As an academic matter, this bill sets a poor international precedent as it would provide a blueprint for countries to circumvent international treaty requirements, such as the 15 year design patent term required in the recently signed Patent Law Treaties Implementation Act of 2012 (the Hague Agreement). From a practical perspective, this bill will likely die in committee, since we would expect that OEMs and suppliers with impacted IP rights to oppose the bill. 

We will continue to monitor the progress of this bill and report any further developments.

[1]  Co-sponsored by Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA49) and Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-CA19). See also S. 780,, referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee, and co-sponsored by Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) and Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT).

This blog is made available by Foley & Lardner LLP (“Foley” or “the Firm”) for informational purposes only. It is not meant to convey the Firm’s legal position on behalf of any client, nor is it intended to convey specific legal advice. Any opinions expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the views of Foley & Lardner LLP, its partners, or its clients. Accordingly, do not act upon this information without seeking counsel from a licensed attorney. This blog is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship. Communicating with Foley through this website by email, blog post, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship for any legal matter. Therefore, any communication or material you transmit to Foley through this blog, whether by email, blog post or any other manner, will not be treated as confidential or proprietary. The information on this blog is published “AS IS” and is not guaranteed to be complete, accurate, and or up-to-date. Foley makes no representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, as to the operation or content of the site. Foley expressly disclaims all other guarantees, warranties, conditions and representations of any kind, either express or implied, whether arising under any statute, law, commercial use or otherwise, including implied warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Foley or any of its partners, officers, employees, agents or affiliates be liable, directly or indirectly, under any theory of law (contract, tort, negligence or otherwise), to you or anyone else, for any claims, losses or damages, direct, indirect special, incidental, punitive or consequential, resulting from or occasioned by the creation, use of or reliance on this site (including information and other content) or any third party websites or the information, resources or material accessed through any such websites. In some jurisdictions, the contents of this blog may be considered Attorney Advertising. If applicable, please note that prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Photographs are for dramatization purposes only and may include models. Likenesses do not necessarily imply current client, partnership or employee status.

Related Services


California Statute Offers Dramatic Change to Independent Contractor, Franchise-Franchisee Relationships
20 September 2019
Legal News: Distribution & Franchise
AI Ouch! AI Job Interview Law Starting in 2020!
20 September 2019
Internet, IT & e-Discovery Blog
RCE PTA Carve-Out Resumes After Interference
18 September 2019
The Ninth Circuit Expected to Rule that Doctors Can Be Wrong in the Winter v. Gardens False Claims Act Case
18 September 2019
Legal News: Government Enforcement Defense & Investigations
Lacktman, Ferrante Cited in mHealth Intelligence About Ryan Haight Act
19 September 2019
mHealth Intelligence
Vernaglia Comments on AHA v Azar Decision
18 September 2019
MedPage Today
Tinnen Discusses How Viewpoint Diversity Helps Businesses Thrive
18 September 2019
Lach Comments on Launch of New Group
16 September 2019
BizTimes Milwaukee
MedTech Impact Expo & Conference
13-15 December 2019
Las Vegas, NV
Review of 2020 Medicare Changes for Telehealth
11 December 2019
Member Call
BRG Healthcare Leadership Conference
06 December 2019
Washington, D.C.
CTeL Telehealth Fall Summit 2019
04-06 December 2019
Washington, D.C.