The case is Automotive Body Parts Association v. “This result not only will adversely affect the automotive repair industry with its thousands of daily repair part transactions, but also will adversely affect every industry where products or product components have designs or portions of designs covered by design patents and are in need of repair,” the trade group wrote.įord didn’t file a response to the ABPA’s petition. In appealing to the Supreme Court, ABPA argued the ruling could minimize, or even eliminate, the right to repair in design patent cases. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the ruling in July 2019. “It follows that the owner lacks the right to have those parts made for her by ABPA members,” U.S. Buying a vehicle doesn’t give the owner the right to make “new auto-body parts covered by Ford’s design patents,” the judge said. D489,299 and D501,685 unenforceable against ABPA members. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan refused to find Ford’s U.S. The group argued an F-150 owner has the right to repair a damaged truck, and either make replacement parts or have those parts made for them.Ī judge in the U.S. The ABPA, a trade association representing companies that sell vehicle replacement parts, was among those that backed the legislation, which stalled in Congress.ĪBPA sued Ford in 2013 after certain members were accused of selling infringing parts. Replacement parts distributors and insurance companies for years pushed for legislation that would cut the amount of time automakers could enforce design patents against collision repair parts makers. The high court’s denial of the Automotive Body Parts Association’s appeal leaves in place a decision that rejected the ABPA’s attempt to block Ford from enforcing patents on headlamp and hood designs against the group’s members. Supreme Court refused to consider an automotive trade group’s challenge to design patents covering parts for Ford Motor Co.'s F-150 pickup truck. May cost you a several hundred bucks for the advice, but may save you a lot in the end.The U.S. There are a number of fairly picky details relating to copyrights under what is called the works for hire doctrine (that I am not qualified to spout off about), and these may need to be explored.
I think MYK is right to wonder about the copyrights aspect. You must provide the part (s) drawing (s) number (s). Offsite: You must fill-out, sign, and return with payment, the following Parts Drawing Order Form. (This service is not available for offsite researchers). Has the company said anything to you, one way or another about this? Threatened you, if you go use similar designs for others?įrankly, if you have an interest in fleshing out your rights, you really ought to talk to an IP lawyer who does copyright work as well as patent work. Onsite: You can print out your own copies of parts drawings by using a microfiche reader/printer. Did you have a contract like that? If not, it could be that the company does not own much other than the one exact design you did for them (if even that.). First, they can't try to patent a design YOU INVENTED without your assistance - that is, while a car body design (if new, not obvious) can indeed be the subject of a design patent application as MYK mentions, they can't legally file for a patent application without your sign off.ĭid you have a contract with this company? I would never hire a design consultant without a contract that says "everything that you do for me, that I pay for, I OWN ALL RIGHTS TO".
0 kommentar(er)
